0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
POWER7 (which came out in 2009) was replaced by POWER7+ in 2012. IBM shrunk the lithography but kept the die size the same, so they used the extra space for more cache, a crypto accelerator, a compression/decompression accelerator, and some other goodies. There were able to bump up the clock speed as well.
Core for core, POWER7+ is about a 20% improvement, but you're right, no more cores per socket so there is no way they would see the kind of shrink described in the article if they kept the same amount of compute power.
IBM did come out with a new blade design (Flex Systems) with denser packaging, but that combined with the faster CPU will still only get them about 2/3rd of the way there (still impressive). |
Watson is often referred to as a singular system..."Watson can diagnose my health symptom" but it is really a set of technologies developed to approach the input/output of information in a new fashion.
What we are seeing is the maturation of the Watson technology from single proof-point (Jeopardy) to targeted installations (healthcare) and now to a technology mature enough to open up and expand to new use cases (Watson ecosystem).
Sure IBM wants to build Watson up and sell for specific use cases (healthcare, finance, telco). But the ecosystem efforts are where consumers are likely to see the most benefit. IBM does not have the bandwidth to develop Watson for every type of application, therefore they expose the core Watson technology to partners, developers, ISVs and allow them to license Watson for their own applications. To those people asking "when do I get it on my phone", it is from the ecosystem efforts that we are likely to see applications that consumers interact with on their phones, but use Watson technology in some fashion. |
If the algorithm is highly parallelizable, GPU TFLOPs are similar to a single CPU TFLOPS. If the algorithm isn't very parallelizable, it is very much an apples to orange comparison. Very few algorithms are highly parallelizable. |
Med student here: you're ignorant. A computer will never be able to diagnose accurately the various pathologies in the human body. Never. Unless its common like common cold, flu, etc. |
Canadian reporting here, no you won't say good bye to slide and sign for a long time.
We have smart (chip) cards for credit and bank cards, however both modes are still available because the thing is very sensitive. The chip reader often fail and then you need to slide, but it isn't easy or fast...
I work in retail and this is what happen daily:
Customer is too retarded to find where to insert card.
Customer insert the card on the wrong side
Customer insert card, reader says there is an error (happen more often than you think). Reader says to use magnetic strip. Customer read to you what the machine display and ask what to do. You tell them to "use the magnetic stripe" -_- Now, it will either work or fail depending on the stars alignment. We often need to cancel the payment and re-initiate it to make it work, some times more than once.
Sometimes it just won't work and we transfer the transaction to another cash register for payment. I think my record is about 10min of wasted time. |
I have an automated transfer set up to my parents account every month (payment for a loan from the bank of mom, as I have it written in my records). It takes about 3-5 days to clear for some ungodly reason.
When my roommates owe me 400 bucks for rent, cash becomes unruly, so checks it is! |
Oh, so all those people that downvoted you were statists?
When US Libertarians call anarch-syndicalist/Classical Libertarian/Lib Socialists like myself pinko commies who hate individuals and freedom, I don't go blathering on about being right when capistlists (yet again) fuck over the economy or their workers, and that all those US Libertarians that downvoted me are clueless fools.
Cause doing so would be pointless and have little value. Your comment just makes US Libertarians look like butt hurt children. |
Actually no. Telecommunication cables require constant maintenance and they are severed pretty frequently, but the telecom companies get them back up as quickly as possible. In 2008, there were two cables damaged within a short period of time, which isn't that unusual, but because they happened in similar geographic regions, it caused a massive internet outage for parts of the Middle East and the Mediterranean.
After that, the media started reporting on every single cable break or hiccup in the Eastern Hemisphere because fear and conspiracy theories sell headlines. They didn't bother to mention that these things happen like twice a week somewhere in the world. |
They do, it's called "When I sign in or close all apps on a screen, go to the desktop instead of Start", or |
ELI5, I've never really used Windows but is Windows 8 that bad? Why?
When I took a user design class in school, one of the core tenets was "don't surprise the user".
Windows 8 surprises you a lot.
Want to click the start menu and search for a program to open "surprise a "start menu" pops up that covers up everything for some reason.
Accidentally move your mouse to the right hand of the screen "Surprise! A charms menu with unfamiliar iconography!"
Want to shutdown your machine? Hopefully you can guess correctly that you go to the bottom left, open the full screen start menu and then to the upper right and click your username (which has no indications that it is an inter-actable element). |
To quote Zuckerberg in the recent call with shareholders regarding the purchase of the Rift:
>"We're clearly not a hardware company. We're not going to try to make a profit off of the hardware long-term...but if we can make this a network where people are communicating, and buying virtual goods, and there might be ads down the line...that’s where the business could come from." |
This. I know it won't be a popular opinion here, but capitalism and profit motive have always fueled innovation in the United States making it a leader in developing new technologies.
There's also the issue of obtaining the backing of "big money" which is somehow a bad thing, even though it secures the capital base needed to market and develop and improve the very product we want. |
I attended a presentation yesterday and learned something that changes my perspective on this buyout.
Google bought the company Nest, who makes a smart thermostat that dynamically changes behavior based on your habits. Essentially it tracks the time of day and the temperature you set things at and plugs values into an algorithm to predict future settings and does it automatically.
Now we all know Google isn't the slightest bit of an A/C or thermostat kinda company. They bought them for the algorithm and software that drives the thermostat. Sure Nest still exists and produces their thermostat but Google now has new technology to apply to their own products. What are they going to use it for? Mobile devices primarily, tracking volume levels for certain applications or logging GPS routes to dynamically and automatically update you with relevant information. Say you take a left out of your house, it would then calculate what paths you take that go left, then you take a right and it filters again and again until it gets a relevant idea of where you may be going and then give you an ETA or traffic updates for that route.
So in the end, the company will still exist and hopefully Facebook simply bought them for the tech and won't stick their finger in the pie with the direction OR is going. So if Facebook wants to simply buy their software or tech for their own use and not force a FB overlay while we're gaming then fine.
The initial response and thoughts people are having is Facebook 'gaming' is on a completely different end of the spectrum that gaming enthusiast expect the OR to deliver on. |
I was very very close to purchasing my Dev kit, so happy that I waited. Usually this kind of thing doesn't happen until a day or two after I have made the purchase. Thank you Facebook for ruining another of my dreams. |
Hydrogen can be synthesized from water using electrolysis, so the cost to make it is equal to the cost of the electricity, and as energy is conserved, the energy you put into it in the form of electricity will come out as stored chemical energy. So fuel cost wise you are comparing the cost of oil to electricity.
The big BUT here is that doing this at a large scale requires expensive facilities (Like oil rigs and refineries in the case of oil) to work, which ATM exist but not at the enormous scale required to make hydrogen a widely-used fuel. Also, storing the hydrogen is very difficult as it needs to be compressed and cooled a lot to be of any practical use in a spacecraft, which again requires expensive facilities to do at the scale needed which at the moment do not exist. And more energy to run these facilities, which adds extra expense to production. |
I disagree because there is such huge differences in wages and cost of living across Europe. I see it all the time: where I live one can barely survive on €1500 net/month. Workers from countries with €400 average wages come here and undercut the local population.It's great for them even if they can save just €100 a month but local wages get depressed and the local population which has to pay taxes and save for retirement just cannot compete.Also they usually are not legally employed which saves the employer even more money and puts local workers at a further disadvantage as they have to save for retirement and pay for everyones free healthcare. |
First of all, I would like to point out that you don't know exactly who you are talking with, so try to stay away from hypothetical "you"s. I'm no social democrat, nor liberal, or any of those categories. When it comes to labels, I use the anarchist-communist or just communist (make no mistake, not the one with Lenin and co.), but that's just the great sweeping description, and I do not subscribe to identify my self according to a label.
About the "Distributist" idea. The thing is that there's a historical component of capitalism. This means, that all big businesses today were, at some point in the past, much smaller. It is easy to prove that there's a natural tendency in competition that from a relatively equal state over time it grows in to a state where a few competitor gains most of the sum of income. You can think of a theoretical state where the growth of the "pie" keeps the competitors from cutting in to each other's piece, but that would be really incredible when it comes to social-economical processes. Even if there's a temporary stagnation, a temporary zero-sum or declining-sum condition, disproportionate wealth increase will be the result and in further growth this disproportionate state will inflate. One can say that the game of market economy inevitably lead to few large players with a struggling small competitors on the fringes.
So, as long as you follow the market economy rule (especially the variant in which labour itself is a market good), it will lead to a world not unlike our current one. Ol' Communists, Bolsheviks and such weren't that original IMHO, because the basis they choose to build on was the (false) assumption that of social democracy: the participation of the working class will balance the power of the wealth owners and wealth producers. That political change alone can curb the excesses of capitalism and we end up in a Brave New World. In the Bolshevik interpretation the idea was to grab all political power, and all is good. That the world could get better with "better" managers. And that's what they ended up with: a different management of the same system of interest, that of good ol' industrial capitalism (wage-labour, profit motif, big companies, etc). No wonder that the ruling elite of the old is perfectly compatible with the "market capitalist" interest, from the West.
So, let's have a look at the population support thing. When you say, "I don't care!", you rule out the reality of the problem to consider. Let me present you a reading of the current global situation. Those "beehive" countries provide the industrial capabilities for Europe to made its transition in to the highly individualist and relatively well off society. Population dynamics are tricky ones, because there are some counter-intuitive process to consider. For example, when life expectancy is low, the number of children grows and having babies starts earlier, as a survival tactic (it's pretty much genetics). With the historically sudden advances of medical and supply systems the life-expectancy grew pretty quickly, much faster than culturally and individually people change. You see, in Europe in the 50's and 60's there was a huge rise in the population, for the same reason. Just a generation ago 5+ kids weren't really a rare number in any European country. My parents', and my grandparents's generation is more populous than my own. And their life expectancy is pretty high compared to the less developed world. And what do you know?! The industrial production, that feeds capitalism shifted toward these populous, and therefore low wage countries. So our well being (and thus, dwindling populations) are certainly entangled with the low earning, high number population of (mostly) Asia.
Now, you proposing a regression in terms of technology (most of our technology is really relying on this high capacity production infrastructure). Your Internet example is partly flawed. Mesh networks will not be able to retain the same, and very useful function of the Internet: the global reach and possibility of communicate everyday, artistic, and most importantly, technological and scientific ideas across the world. You don't make a mesh network reach from Tokyo to Toulouse. I see a lot of possibilities in a mesh supported citizen network, but it isn't a replacement of the current Internet. Besides, the technological need of cheap network hardware, and computers also relies on the way the world is currently working. I'm not saying that we can't do it differently, but it isn't as straight as you claim it to be.
I'm not supporting the current state of world, but this is the initial condition to build from. You can't just gloss over how the world is in order to get to a desirable state. |
Informed consent. It is the ethical gateway to human experimentation, and they didn't have it. If Facebook is willing to violate one of the most basic rules of scientific research, what other lines are they willing to cross?
Edit to address some common replies.
First, informed consent is an ethical requirement of any interventional research. It is required that the researcher explain any potential risks or adverse reactions of the test. It is also required that such consent be documented and scrutinized. No, the terms and conditions users accept is not even close to qualifying.
This is Research Design 101 stuff. Researchers need not disclose the test parameters, or even the desired data, in order for subjects to be properly informed. Many people have pointed out that informing subjects skews the results, which is why there is an awful lot of effort and education that goes into proper research design. It is perfectly acceptable to tell subjects that they are being tested for one thing, and then observe something else.
Next, informed consent is wholly the responsibility of the researcher. It is entirely up to those doing the study that the subjects are both aware that they are subjects, and are aware of the risks. There is zero responsibility on the test subjects to read or understand the consent they are giving.
If the subject doesn't understand that they have given consent, then the researcher has failed to obtain informed consent. It is not possible to blame the subjects for not having read the agreement. Nor is carelessness an excuse for proceeding with the test without consent, regardless of whether it is the subject or the researcher that has been careless.
Lastly, in my not so humble opinion, this type of research requires informed consent. It is designed to affect the mood and psychological health of the subjects. It is completely different from market research or opinion polls that are commonly done without informed consent. It is perfectly acceptable to introduce variable stimuli into a public space and observe how people react. It is not acceptable, or ethical, to attempt to modify or alter people's emotional states over time without making them aware that they are involved in a study. |
In the US, a lot of ISPs have formed a monopoly in most areas. I know that in North East Pennsylvania, my choices are Blue Ridge Cable and Verizon; neither are cheap. I pay $100/month for basic cable (not HD, no channels above 89ish) and 15Mb/s internet (1.5 Megabyte/second download speed). As a gamer, I'm not thrilled. |
The major issues with compulsory voting involve freedoms and inability to vote.
If voting is compulsory, there would need to be some sort of "punishment" for not voting. So, what if you can't vote because you broke your leg? Well, obviously there would be an exemption for that - but then you have to prove you were ill. That is typically something the government would not need to, nor care to, know. Additionally, people may attempt to not vote (for who knows why) and then use these exemptions to their advantage. Australia had a point where the compulsory voting was being mocked by casting "[donkey votes](
In Australia, there was one point where someone suggested people cast empty ballots. IIRC, the person rallying for such action got fined, but the people who actually did it were not because they're trying not to be too harsh on people who don't vote - just target those who are trying to spoil others from voting. Donkey voting is completely valid, however.
The US would have to figure out a similar method, enforce it in some fashion and ensure that there is legitimate access to voting methods because getting in trouble because you couldn't get to the polls in time would be a problem. It could be solved via a few options, including multi-day voting, early voting and simplification of absentee ballots - or even figuring out a secure way to vote online. But each of these access points provide significant blowback from the false claims of "voter fraud" and people "voting more than once". Additionally, multi-day voting is not permitted according to the way our electoral laws are fashioned. We are able to vote early because you are, in essence, casting an absentee ballot on site.
Now, as far as freedom - with compulsory voting comes a restriction on voting. Part of America is that we can opt not to take part in the politics of the country. We have the freedom to choose political parties, make any sort of political statement they want and generally say what they want (of course, this is not unlimited, but generally allowed).
Without the freedom to choose to take part (or to not to), one is limited in their ability to protest the government. Some citizens feel it is immoral to take part in a government holding a war - so there would need to be further exemptions.
Eventually you get to a point where everyone has an exemption. Much like anyone can walk into a Dr's office in California and get a medical marijuana card, people would have any number of reasons not to vote.
But it comes down to the argument of whether or not people have the right to vote. If it is a right, you can choose to do it. If it is a requirement, it is not a right, but rather a part of it. I do not have a right to file taxes, I am required. I have no freedom from taxation.
The arguments against it are annoyingly small in my opinion. And compulsory voting would force employers to allow us to vote no matter what the circumstance. There are other issues that could be tackled much more easily, such as reforming the way we do voting from a plurality to instant runoff voting, where you could cast a vote for the guy you really want, but also cast a vote for a guy that you like more than the Generic Douchebag candidate, if your first choice doesn't get enough votes, your vote transfers to the second candidate. This encourages support for third parties in most cases, because instead of saying "well, I'd vote for the green party member, but if I vote for him, the Democrat may lose and I would rather have a Democrat I don't agree with on all topics than a Republican I don't agree with at all" you say "I vote for the green party candidate, but if he isn't popular enough to matter, I want you to attribute my vote to the Democratic candidate".
District manipulation (gerrymandering) also needs to be dealt with. Several state-level republican candidates in various states were literally ousted by the governor's drawing of districts specifically to respond to the actions of various state-level votes. The very same can be done in most states, and is done. This needs to be addressed, there are many proposed solutions (such as computer generated districts, intentional gerrymandering by each party in order to negotiate districts, distribution of districts by a neutral group). However, none of them are easy, and none of them are quick.
What it all comes down to is we could change a lot. We could implement compulsory voting (or even provide an incentive to vote if we really wanted to). We could implement instant runoff voting, remove and/or reform gerrymandering laws, require time off for voting, improve voting access, multi-day voting, etc... - but all of this requires action by congress. In some cases there is specific laws to address these issues that would need to be repealed and/or modified/amended.
[An opinion piece from time sums a lot of the arguments for voting up nicely.]( |
After reading comments here, all i can say is that the people that are responsible for his limitation of freedom, are just afraid, because this is something new they are doing.
There were many murderers in the past year/decade/age but the guy here is something new, so the government/police do not know how to deal with him.
Where they had enough everyday crimes to deal with, it's just their everyday job. |
Well those are some great arguments, that I mostly agree with.
But I still prefer the Swedish system (as explained in the other comment).
I agree that all prisoners should be treated equally (to the greatest extent possible), not only for the people but for the system itself (to protect itself against redundant lawsuits).
There's just too many pieces of this case that don't fit. Like how he and Gottfrid has been treated differently than other inmates. Things like not being allowed to read, get visits or even get to a funeral without having to wear handcuffs. And those are only offenses after the scandalous case with the obviously partial judge. |
Yeah, I know... That's how it usually goes down.
I'll just answer why I wrote what I did right here (an excuse/explanation), just to clarify what went wrong.
Here goes: I saw posts from other people on Facebook, stating the same thing. And it was obviously misunderstandings, as they were actually just their opinions on the matter... I believed them to have sources. |
Which is actually the problem with authoritarian states, or even overly stringent laws or enforcement thereof! Showing a certain leniency, depending on the person, the crime, the motive, etc, will actually make someone more likely to not reoffend. Similarly, if someone just screws up once or twice, and you punish them severely for it, regardless of context, that will make them MORE likely to reoffend, which is why the whole "three strikes" thing seems so terrible a policy.
Obviously, this depends on all the surrounding factors, too. A serial killer who kills again? Yes, punish severely, get help, and perhaps keep him locked up indefinitely because he clearly CAN'T be in society without feeling all stabby. But a serial drug user (or "addict", medically speaking)? That's not cause to throw them away for life, that's cause to get them some help.
In this case, there's clearly a policy of "any time a convict is out of prison, they must be in handcuffs". And it clearly has some relevent reasoning behind it; you don't want the aforementioned serial killer running amock when he goes out for tea with the governor. But given the crime, and the reason, it's clearly a policy poorly used. If they didn't enforce it, they might get a few saying "But Peter didn't have to!", to which they'd have to explain "He didn't, but he also wasn't put in here for diddling kids, you ass." But that outcome would be much better than the alternative, which is alienating said convict (making him more likely to reoffend...as much as you can qualify his reason for imprisonment an "offence"), as well as alienating some of the public, making THEM more likely to offend, or be unsupportive of those involved in creating or enforcing the laws. |
Give him credit, he's currently campaigning against the internet sales tax.
It's a lot to fight on all the issues at once if you're one of the few people doing pretty much everything.
Commenting on Ted Cruz takes no time, but being Ted Cruz, is most likely a 24/7 run.
That's why I don't care about any senators or representatives tearing into any comments made by Ted, they haven't done anything other than commenting on things, whereas Ted is actually meeting with people and discussing stuff. |
Gads. I am not a fan of video news about politics, and a video reply to a written op-ed is good example why.
An op-ed is a persuasive piece: a structured and supported argument. Replies to op-eds are good reading. A fair writer goes point by point through the oppositions argument. Both the original and the reply (usually) have the needed depth that most issues require to discuss fully.
I did not expect to find this at CNN, but I clicked anyway. What I found was no original (I could not hear whether she said where it came from) and the opposition replying to one point out of context of the complete piece.
No matter how great a person sounds, if they only reply to a single point of an another's argument out of context, the reader/viewer should rarely accept it: unless the original argument was very weak or the point is obviously flawed.
My secondary gripe is I can read X many times faster than I can watch a video. My time is valuable. |
Speakers a hokey, stupid and cheap in my eyes. HOWEVER,
So a lot of the tubing has been around for a while and don't do all that much for volume, and personally I see as an improvement.
The pointless tubes coming off of the air induction system are called the resonators and they function to change tune the pitch of the engine in the same way that sliding a trombone slide out changes the pitch. This allows bigger cars to be tuned to a deeper rumble and faster cars to be tuned higher whirr. More importantly, it allows all the years for a certain model to be tuned to the same pitch, even with slight engine changes.
I know in a few cars the sound insulation for the cabin has become so good that the noise from outside the vehicle has become almost non-existent. This also means that if an engine sounds loud, You may not hear it. This is why they will put tubing to the interior to allow in some noise. Sometimes they can adjust it further to allow the noise only when accelerating etc. and allow a better user experience. |
Cars may be brought past the speed limit, but nobody's dumb enough to try to corner at speeds that would allow any sort of aerodynamics to do work.
We're not just talking about going fast, we're talking about going fast through corners because otherwise, you'd end up missing completely. We're talking about F1 cars that miss the corner at 100KPH because despite their low mass and massive grip, they simply weren't going fast enough to get aero and stick to the corner. Try again at 150, maybe you'll stick better. |
I had a Ford Focus ST that did this. It honestly was nice because it rode really quiet on the highway but the "pipes" opened up when you accelerated. I have a WRX now and while it sounds great it is loud as hell on the highway and I miss the Ford in a lot of ways. |
I'll be honest at the risk of being downvoted, since I know how much this sub LOVES 3D printing... I think that the hype surrounding 3D printing in its current state is one big massive circlejerk. Let me be clear: I completely understand the immense amount of innovation that 3D printers will bring to the world within the next decade or two, and I am excited to see those advancements play out within my lifetime. But right now, 3D printing is in its infancy, which is okay, but when I see people completely lose their shit over how awesome the new MakerBot is, I cannot help but roll my eyes. Right now, a MakerBot is little more than an elaborate hot clue gun, that can layer, via the process of melting spools of filament, simple, immobile, single color objects into existence. Granted, compared to what we had a decade ago, it's an incredible feat, but it's simply not capable of much more than making crude figurines, unless you are engineering several stationary components which you then self assemble into something elaborate.
That's not to say that there are not some already amazing technologies already in existence, that are geared more towards industrial applications. Take the [Zcorp Zprinter 850]( which is capable of producing complex, moving objects, IN COLOR! This is the type of 3D printing technology that I am looking forward to making its way into the consumer space, because by the time you can purchase a smaller variant of this for a reasonable price, the industrial side of 3D printing is going to be amazing. |
Dave Jones examines the numbers to see how viable solar roadways are. He also compares them to three different systems each within a couple km's of the actual solar roadway under discussion. |
Please, make a better bot that can consistently make decent |
Had coffee there when I was visiting and it was phenomenal. I had a latte with a really beautifully done design on top. The dude who was pouring the coffee had a look of disdain on his face that would have frothed the milk all by itself, but his work spoke differently. You can't be that good at your job without taking a little pride in it and you wouldn't take pride in something you hate.
Noticed the lack of wifi in there too. Was a pain because being on holidays and travelling a lot, we were relying on free coffee-house wifi to pull up google maps... |
Sorry, when I use the term 'market' I'm not trying to convey necessarily a place where items and services are bought and sold. Rather, what I'm trying to convey is an environment or independent computers that work together and route to one another freely without coercion to do such; computers that offer services either for a fee or freely at their owner's discretion. As such these computers, rather, servers compete to offer something that people find valuable; if only information or goods or service. Democracy to me, is the antithesis of such a pursuit.
Democracy is a rule of the majority, subjecting independent nodes to a majority rule is exactly what congress wants to do, being fast and loose with the term 'majority' in this instance. Now do terms get tricky with such agencies with ICCAN, yes. But, ICCAN does little else than assign IP address of TLD & maintains authoritative DNS. My question I pose to you, is there anything stopping someone or a group of people starting up their own DNS that doesn't give their DNS information to the authoritative DNS servers & allow people to use an exclusive network? I think the answer is no, as long as that network doesn't interfere with other networks & cause harm to other networks. I also think TOR hidden services is a great example of this point and proving the point valid.
Further, I ask you would it be OK if ICCAN decided to not list sites if they so choose? I think that violates their main objective, yet, this is what SOPA/PIP/OPEN ultimately wants, US control over the internet and to conform to their rules. Yet, marketwise there is nothing stopping for a more robust, accessible alternative like that of TOR services and other darknets. Sites like Google and Yahoo!, Ask, MSN compete to a degree with one another to gain visitors. As does Reddit, 9gag, facebook, littletinysite.com, momAndPop.net. People freely have the choice of using the services they find the most beneficial. |
This is a total screaming load of bullshit and is as much an infringement of free speech rights as SOPA/PIPA.
>First, I still don't believe the "right to be forgotten" is truly a privacy issue at all. A privacy issue is about protecting private information. The right to be forgotten is the opposite of that. It's asking websites to delete public information, including factual news information about a person. That's not about privacy. That's about pretending public information is really private.
Think it through, people. Examples of its use:
You post something negative, but true, about Tom Cruise, on reddit. He doens't like it, and can easily and successfully sue reddit to take it down, or else they suffer penalties.
You post something negative, but true, about a cop who falsely arrested you, on reddit. He doens't like it, and can easily and successfully sue reddit to take it down, or else they suffer penalties.
You post something negative, but true, about a politican you disagree with, on reddit. He doens't like it, and can easily and successfully sue reddit to take it down, or else they suffer penalties.
Etc. |
The greatest difficulty is recycling of the PFO* out of the lungs. Note that the article suggests CO2 scrubbing by attaching a gill to an artery in the leg. Hardly a simple resolution. With premature babies the process involves intubation and partial filling of the lungs with the oxygentated liquid. Again hardly a practical option for diving or much less doing anything active. |
I guess I am a little surprised at the rage directed towards the women. I personally didn't really think they were complaining; they didn't write the article, they answered some questions by the writer, and gave honest answers.
Only one of them even brought up the increasing level of sexualization, and it's her rationale for moving away from the industry.
In the end, I thought that all the women were looking for is respect for their line of work. I think it would be very easy for someone to dismiss them as a "booth babe" and probably would look down on them if they mentioned that as their line of work, because it is perceived as easy, and for women too dumb to do anything else. And all they likely want (as anyone does) is some respect for what is in many ways, a difficult job. |
This is absolutely not something the government should be messing with. IMO the government should be stepping in where individual A stands to harm individual B through their actions. Thus we get laws against murder, theft and speeding. I am ok with these laws.
I am less ok with laws that say I can't have a plug in my bathroom in case I am retarded and drop my hair dryer in the bath and kill myself. I say let anyone that stupid kill themselves, but at least I can see what they are thinking.
Filtering the net? fuck off. I'll browse whatever the hell I damn want thank you! my watching porn has nothing to do with anyone else. If only because filtering the net is an impossible task. Starting with 1) where do you draw the line? is page3.com porn? do you block it anyway? /r/gonewild? there must be all sorts on imgur, do you block imgur under this?
Then there is the general futility of trying to block any website with all the proxy sites out there. Going to block all of those too? |
They tried blocking "The Pirate Bay" over here (in Britain). The majority of people using it just are tech savvy and know that using a proxy to get round it is very simple. The only people this will stop is those who are children of the technologically impaired and those who are too nervous to phone up their ISP and ask for it to be unfiltered. A more effective thing to do would be to look at the filth half the chart musicians are spewing about "slapping bitches" and "smoking with their niggas". |
the problem is that:
1: the filter will block more than just porn, it will block sexual health sites (by mistake), it will block small businesses, by mistake. There is no perfect black list of sites; there will be "false positives", sites that should get thought are stopped.
2: the filter will not block all the over 18 content, children will still be able to access inappropriate material, by using proxy's, by using friends internet, by using google image search and youtube, facebook.
3: Because the filter does not block all the right content it is selling a false safety to parents. If the child is left unsupervised they can/will find things that are not appropriate.
By all means have make ISP's have to provide some sort of blocking software, but the more control the parents have over what is blocked the better the block will be. When you put it server side the parents have almost no control over it. |
Not a fan of the nationalist agenda and Salmond promotes it. It is in my opinion that nationalism is poison and people like Alex Salmond are very cleverly feeding that poison to people.
If you look at the history of political parties with 'nationalist' or 'national' in their name it makes for some horrible reading. They all start out with the same ideologies "stronger economy", "wealthier populous", "more jobs for people of X nationality", etc (which seems like a fantastic idea for X nationals). But then they start to get a bit radical... "Y nationality are to blame for our economic woes", "Y nationality wants to ruin our identity", "Y nationality should have different circumstances to X nationality", etc.
I think that people always go "fuck off that wont happen to us" without putting things into perspective. Unfortunately though these things are happening in the UK and I'll explain what I mean...
"Y nationality are to blame for our economic woes": The English are selling OUR natural resources and we aren't getting any benefits from it.
"Y nationality wants to ruin our identity": Scotland has a huge national identity and Westminster wants to squash it.
"Y nationality should have different circumstances to X nationality": People from England (and only England) have to pay £10,000 a year for a university education in Scotland.
Now, I am in NO WAY saying the SNP are synonymous with the Nationalist Socialist party. BUT their political methods are very similar... both parties take a pre-existing racial divide and use it to provide answers to complex economic scenarios. It's really scary to think this is happening in my home country but it is... |
The problem that the people in charge of creating these laws do not realize is that we will all just find another way to download anything we want. Remember when people were being sued for downloading songs with Limewire and Kazaa? This is the same type of reactionary measure that does not help them combat the ultimate problem. The new laws will likely push file sharing back towards the fringe for those that are slightly more technically savvy, but eventually we will find a way to circumvent their mediocre protection measures. Ultimately they need to reform the copyright laws to reflect the changes in the freedom of information and media exchange. |
Because art and creative expression have intrinsic values separate from their monetary worth...there are surely people who create art and music and film simply to make money, but the majority of true artists see money as a means to a more important end, which is to express themselves. Making money is not the goal; sharing art with others, so they might be inspired in their lives is .
Another way to look at it, economically, is with opportunity costs. Making art is worth spending time on it for most artists. But there are only so many hours in a day, and people need money to eat, keep a roof over their heads, and buy new guitar strings (for example). If you had to spend 10 hours a day flipping burgers to make ends meet, you may not have the time or energy to paint enough or record enough to make a living. |
Well that's where you have decide how you're going to define the supply. Sure, if we consider all music a commodity (homogeneous, easy to create given the appropriate tools, consumed in a similar fashion across the board), then the answer you're clearly fishing for is that the value is nearly zero. But we're not talking about frat-boys playing acoustic into GarageBand, we're talking about people (such as myself) who care about their art more than most or any other things in life, and given the opportunity would take a modest income while making music over a six-digit salary earned in a cubicle. And so, as long as the demand for "premium goods", aka good quality music, remains high, there will be a market value for it. As an analogy, look at tomatoes. You can get a whole crate of tomatoes for cheap at your nearest CostCo or Walmart, but they will be tasteless and unremarkable. OR, you can buy fewer, but better, heirloom tomatoes from a farmer's market, where you will meet the farmer, shake his hand, and personally hand him your money. If farmers are musicians and tomatoes are songs/albums, would you rather pay a corporate bigwig next to nothing for next-to-nothing quality, or pay a premium directly to the producer himself for a superb product? |
How to destroy the entertainment industry in two easy steps:
1: Crank out less and less original, quality content.
2. Restrict access to said content to obsolete limited distribution channels and prosecute or legislate against any attempts to gain alternative means of access, paid or otherwise.
I welcome this. Because everyone I know feels more or less as I do, in that forcing me to buy DVDs and pay for bloated premium cable channel packages would simply be a final, giant nail in the entertainment coffin. So, if this happens the way they want, it will only mean it will collapse around them even faster and we can flush the entertainment toilet to make room for whatever is next. |
I'm sorry but i'm going to play devils advocate here.
What exactly is it that you are against here?
>After four offenses, the historic plan calls for these residential internet providers to initiate so-called “mitigation measures” (.pdf) that might include reducing internet speeds and redirecting a subscriber’s service to an “educational” landing page about infringement.
>“Each strike is not one infringement. Each strike is dozens or scores or hundreds of infringements,”
So you have to get an email warning 4 times (Which could be 400+ files downloaded) and then the 5th and 6th time you get an educational warning and an internet slow down. For being caught. 6 times. Downloading hundreds of files.
I illegally download movies and music from time to time, but i'm under no illusion that it is somehow ok and morally sound. The fact is you are screwing the artist out of any kind of profit in doing so, so don't say you care about the artists and that's why you are doing it.
The top comment in this thread talks about how paypal and itunes are bad, once again I have to ask: Why? Is it simply a price point issue?
I realize that the record and movie industry is using an outmoded business model which needs to move with the times, but really? Are you also against Netflix because they actually charge you money ?
Is it purely the monitoring aspect? They are monitoring peer to peer services here, not your private internet connection, is that really so terrible? |
I know you're not trying to tell me that if we didn't pay 10 million bucks for a "star" role, we wouldn't be able to find anyone who only does it part time...
Oh, we could certainly find plenty of viable actors willing to work for next to nothing who would be just as great. The issue I'm raising here... well, let's take Two and a Half Men as an example. Under the current model of TV, Ashton Kutcher gets about $700,000 per episode. The highest rate for an actor on TV currently. Let's say that's 20 episodes a season just for even math, so... 14 million each season. People would say "He's being overpaid!" But, consider the numbers. (I'm making a lengthy post, but perhaps it might be interesting to someone.)
One episode of Two and a Half Men makes an estimated $2.6 million in advertising dollars in just its first run. [Source](
Each episode costs other networks about $2 million to air in syndication. [Source](
Now if you lump in DVD, Blu-Ray, digital, and online (cbs streams the show on their site with ads) sales... each episode is valued anywhere between $15-20 million dollars. What to do with all that money? Certainly the actors deserve a large chunk of it as they are what drive the show. Better it go to the creative talent rather than the networks. (Though, let's be honest - they get the largest slice of the pie.)
Essentially, if you make a product that people want and advertisers desire, you're going to make money. So when people say actors shouldn't be paid tens of millions, the question then becomes: So who should? These shows cost a great deal of money to produce, promote, air, distribute after the fact. So, advertising and DVD sales will always come into play. So millions of dollars if the show is successful will come into play. Who to give those millions to?
Remember, the TV show Friends started out with relative unknowns who didn't make much of a living. The show got wildly popular and the actors got paid millions and rightfully so.
I'll never understand the argument of "X entertainer (where X is a sports, film, tv, or other such celebrity) doesn't deserve millions." Well, people are giving their teams, stations or theaters millions upon millions of dollars. Would you instead like them to just say "Let's just donate it to charity and work a little above minimum wage." Well, if that's your argument - what I just said above won't dissuade you. |
You're missing the point. Sure we technonerds can handle the change no problem, the average user can (and will) not.
What you're forgetting is the millions of unwitting people who will end up having their work computers moved over and have to relearn EVERYTHING from scratch, all by themselves.
On top of this, there are all the "new users", college students buying their first computer who will have to decide between this "new" counterintuitive Windows version, or the shiny, well thought out Mac OS.
I love windows just as much as the next guy, but you are deluding yourself if you think this is going to benefit microsoft. They had to step up to the tablet market and instead of making a separate OS, they decided to fuck up their flagship. |
I can download pretty much any TV show, Film or Album ever released thanks to the internet, my point is that the infrastructure and technology is already there, people have been using it for years, the model that exists today with private trackers and news group servers is probably the closest you can get to for ideal content distribution, NTTP for recent stuff from high bandwidth sources, torrents for globally distributed storage with close to 0 storage and bandwidth costs for the content owner. This does leave out streaming but that technology is already out there with Netflicks, Hulu and even Youtube, it wouldn't be hard to implement either.
I pay for this service at present with newsgroup access and torrent site donations, why can't I pay for it from a legitimate source or sources? I have no use for a mountain of plastic discs. Hell I don't even own a CD, DVD or BluRay player/drive anymore.
I buy digital music wherever possible, my needs are simple, lossless and DRM free, which is exactly the same as what I would get by buying a CD and ripping it, I am not asking for special treatment, I am asking for the same thing I would be getting from buying a CD.
I pay for a full cable TV package but never use it, I download everything as I can watch it without when I like in great quality. I only have this package as it is the only way I can give these companies any of my money for TV shows being aired at the time. And if I didn't pirate then I would miss out on fantastic shows such as Breaking Bad as they just are not shown in the UK, on any channel.
I didn't say it needed to be more convenient but it needs to be at least comparable if they truly want to convert pirates, you will find there are lots of people willing to pay for media, just look at iTunes.
The world has changed, technology has changed, they refuse to adapt even when it would cost less than suing everyone and lobbying for their failing business models to be protected in the face of this change.
I'm not even going to touch on your massively flawed argument, it has been proven so many times that piracy does not equal theft. |
Unfortunately we tried to switch but couldn't.
It's Telstra's responsibility to upgrade the copper in our suburb.
Because Telstra won't upgrade the copper we couldn't get broadband from another provider (kinda a restrictive trade practice but we'll let that slide because assholes).
The only plan with a reasonable download limit (500gb per month) is available through Telstra via coax cable modem tied to Telstra's pay TV service.
Because the only Internet we get is through Telstra cable we saw the merit in getting a bundle that includes two pay TV boxes and a home phone that is never used.
We pay handsomely for the content we consume already we just get it through a different path (download) instead of the ones we pay for (cable TV, paid streaming, and free to air TV with complementary streaming).
We would disconnect the cable TV if we could get our content a-la-carte over the internet. We signed up for Quickflix (Australian Netflix) with the streaming option in a flash when it became available. They are close but not quite there yet.
We haven't really explored the complementary streaming option that comes with out pay TV because it's just not convenient.
We would be happy to pay for the content provided it is available in a timely fashion and also includes the back catalogue of whatever show it is. The truth is we already pay for this content in other ways and through other channels.
We still go to the movies in a cinema about 20 times a year. The only time we've ever downloaded a movie is if it was a rare non-current "collectable" or if it wasn't going to air in Australia in a reasonable time. Even then if it was a new release we still saw it in the cinema later because quality. |
We tried to go with Internode/iiNet) but couldn't.
It's Telstra's responsibility to upgrade the copper in our suburb.
Because Telstra won't upgrade the copper we couldn't get broadband from another provider (kinda a restrictive trade practice but we'll let that slide because assholes).
The only plan with a reasonable download limit (500gb per month) is available through Telstra via coax cable modem tied to Telstra's pay TV service.
Because the only Internet we get is through Telstra cable we saw the merit in getting a bundle that includes two pay TV boxes and a home phone that is never used.
We pay handsomely for the content we consume already we just get it through a different path (download) instead of the ones we pay for (cable TV, paid streaming, and free to air TV with complementary streaming).
We would disconnect the cable TV if we could get our content a-la-carte over the internet. We signed up for Quickflix (Australian Netflix) with the streaming option in a flash when it became available. They are close but not quite there yet.
We haven't really explored the complementary streaming option that comes with out pay TV because it's just not convenient.
We would be happy to pay for the content provided it is available in a timely fashion and also includes the back catalogue of whatever show it is. The truth is we already pay for this content in other ways and through other channels.
We still go to the movies in a cinema about 20 times a year. The only time we've ever downloaded a movie is if it was a rare non-current "collectable" or if it wasn't going to air in Australia in a reasonable time. Even then if it was a new release we still saw it in the cinema later because quality. |
What blows my mind as an American is how many times I hear people complaining about this yet continue to willingly shaft themselves. I pay $30 a month for a shitty pre-paid plan on a three year-old trash-tier phone because I simply refuse to pay more for something that isn't worth more than that. |
Copyright industry has gone too far, to the point is considering media sharing a crime.
Their media campaigns are so strong that some people just say illegal downloads when they get music, books our movies through p2p. Even copyright infringement gets totally exaggerated.
So excuse me if I go too defensive when media sharing is called illegal downloading or piracy. Of course there are cases where it's illegal but they are a minority and usually involve other crimes. I'm just tired of copyright lobbies brain washing. |
This stuff is seriously easy. The only reason he's any good is that he
is doing it for fun, not profit, and
spent years learning how to do this.
Anyone could learn how to do this if you sit cooped up in your bedroom for five years straight without anything worthwhile to do with your life. Taking down a website is easy. Being a nuisance is easy. Lots of people could do it. Most of them have better things to do.
Taking down a site is useless. When there's money in it, the security is much higher and more people attack it. The people who break into bank account are both a lot better and a lot more common than people who spend years stoking their own ego.
Plus, the fact that he got caught doing it clearly shows he isn't nearly as good as he thinks he is. If he's any good at all, they wouldn't know what hit 'em. |
Um, okay.
Lesbian here.
We, as lesbians, don't fucking like watching straight girls with long fingernails pretending to enjoy sex with one another. Its not really pleasant to watch them lick a vagina while keeping their face 2 inches away from it, and of course - and this is I think most important - real lesbians don't need to have strap-ons or dildos in the sex they have. The "lesbian" porn that is made for men always has to involve the imagery of a penis, in some way, shape or form - just so the man can imagine himself in the middle of it. |
Prior to releasing Red State, Kevin Smith had a prolonged battle with the WBC. (They say he's a "fag enabler," which is a title he relished.) He did a Q&A, "Kevin Smith: Burn in Hell" (available on Netflix), that covers his delightful interactions with this family. He does an excellent job of portraying the comical insanity, the self-importance, and the complete impotence of this little pool of humanity's sludge. I highly recommend watching it, if only to remind yourself how tiny and fruitless this hate group really is. |
Typically? It's a lot classier, better shot and with better acting, dialogue and emotional connection. |
Downvoted for using the term "theft" in a completely inappropriate way.
This pirate caused some companies decreased sales (most likely significantly less than $100m), by infringing on their copyright/license terms.
At no point did he steal anything. Considering "potential sales" as something that can be stolen is completely retarded. After all, if another company does something (legal) that causes you to lose sales (i.e. advertising for competing products) they are not stealing anything, either. |
I have no clue why people think that I'm defending him (yes I read the article). I also find it extremely rude to downvote without stating why (if the reasons are not obvious at all).
What I was trying to say: He got arrested and he deserved it. That is perfectly fine. But he was not arrested for theft , but because of copyright/licensing issues.
Labeling this as "theft" is simply spreading the retarded (I already explained why) views of the copyright-propaganda-machinery (RIAA, MPAA, etc.). This is not nitpicking. Naming things properly/neutrally is important, because this heavily influences us (just consider politicians: every last one of them knows his euphemisms). |
Just noticed your reply. I'm genuinely trying to understand your position (not trying to discredit your opinion).
So your point of view is to consider software piracy "theft" if the perpetrator profits from it?
I can see why you would distinguish between pirating software and distributing pirated software (some countries explicitly make this distinction by law AFAIK, e.g. Germany).
But I fail to see why participating in a P2P network should be less punishable than reselling bootlegged DVDs. In the DVD-case, you are causing arguably less economic damage to the copyright owner/licenser than in the P2P case!
My point is that software piracy can not be labeled "theft", because:
You are not "stealing" anything- the copyright owner/licenser does not lose his "intellectual property".
You do violate copyright law/license terms, but that is not theft.
The damage from "lost sales" does not make this theft. Considering "lost sales" theft would make every company selling products similar to your own thieves, after all. There is no "right to sale" for an IP-owner. |
Perhaps. I don't know how expensive repairs/maintenance on Audis, BMWs, etc, are, but the battery pack alone in the Tesla is well over $10,000. You'll have decreasing range on the pack in the Tesla, eventually having to replace it once a decade. The cool thing is, new battery technology may come out that will actually be desirable (so it becomes an 'upgrade' rather than maintenance).
It is important to remember that these are luxury cars. That comes with a very different mentality compared to regular cars. Once a decade maintenance may be very nice compared to every 3 months, regardless of cost. This is a $90k car... |
I remember reading that rechargeable batteries are basically a trade off between three things: capacity, longevity, and physical compactness. Generally, you have to pick two of those things and sacrifice the third. iPhones focus on compactness and capacity but sacrifice longevity which is why they only last a year or two before they start to lose capacity. Lithium ions for cars, on the other hand, are much bulkier, but are made to last much, much longer. |
Well, much of this depends on the version of the Model S and the A6 we want to compare. To stack the Model S Performance against a comparable Audi, you'd have to go all the way up to an S6 in terms of content and performance. That would be a price differential of $15,500 when comparing vehicles with zero options.
With an average fuel economy of 20MPG in the Audi, and driving the average 12,000 miles per year, you'd spend roughly $2400 on gas annually at $4 per gallon. Compared to a Tesla, things get a bit weird. At the same distance, the car gets an MPGe rating of 89, but that doesn't equal out to the same rate. At the national average of $0.11 KWh to charge, according to the Feds, it would cost about $490 to charge it each year.
Of course, that number doesn't include regular trips to Audi to change the oil, maintenance on the numerous parts underhood and with the all-wheel-drive powertrain, and quite a bit more. In the first three years, it is normally covered, but after that, it's up to you.
All told, the price differential between each vehicle in that regard is quite small. Go with a lower-spec A6 and a similarly equipped Model S with the 60KWh powertrain, and you'd see the pattern repeat. The initial price differential is about $10,000 between models without optional equipment. The 3.0T gets about 23 MPG on average, the Tesla doing the same as the Performance (albeit with limited range). At that rate, the price differential would fall to little more than $5000 within the first three years, more than an acceptable rate of difference when comparison shopping in the luxury segment. |
In reality, this limitation almost never comes up. I have an 85 kwh Model S. I have 240 miles of range a day (more if i did "max charge"). I use 100 miles of range to commute to and from work, leaving me 140 miles for the rest of the day should I want to jump in and drive. That's more than enough.
It takes me 5 seconds to plug the car in when I get home. I can immediately start charging at 27 miles per hour. Usually I just let it start charging at midnight to take advantage of lower electricity rates. Charge is full in the morning. |
Minding what they said in this review is most likely true, Consumer Reports should ALWAYS be taken with a huge tablespoon of salt. I can't prove to you through the internet (nor do I care if you don't), but I have heavy inside information that they BS a lot of their reports based off opinion. Uncle is the America's division CEO for a major Flat Screen TV and Blu-ray player manufacturer (Japanese based company but they now do all manufacturing in China of course).
Anyhow, Consumer Reports was giving 2 brands of Flatscreens poor score on components and failure while giving excellent reviews for components and longevity on another more expensive brand. The problem is, his company is the sole manufacturer of all three brands which are made on the exact same machines at same time all using A grade components. The only thing different was the case and brand image file put in the firmware. |
Minding what they said in this review is most likely true, Consumer Reports should ALWAYS be taken with a huge tablespoon of salt and cross checked. I can't prove to you through the internet (nor do I care if you believe me), but I have heavy inside information that they BS some of their reports based off opinion. My uncle is the America's division CEO for a major Flat Screen TV and Blu-ray player manufacturer (Japanese based company but they now do all manufacturing in China of course).
Anyhow, Consumer Reports was giving 2 brands of Flatscreens poor score on components and failure while giving excellent reviews for components and longevity on another more expensive brand. The problem is, his company is the sole manufacturer of all three brands which are made on the exact same machines at same time all using A grade components. The only thing different was the case and brand's image file put in the firmware. |
I really wanted to watch this video but the terrible sound quality and the epileptic editing made it impossible. |
I may be wrong here, but doesn't Apple buy a lot of technology from Samsung? I'm not sure what exactly (type anything with Samsung + Apple into a search engine and all you get are reports on patent disputes), but I've got a feeling the retina display is, among other things.
If this is true, I'm not sure that I understand what Apple is doing. I do understand that they are major competitors, and that while Samsung outsells Apple in the smartphone market, Apple makes more profit. It just seems that Apple is kind of shooting it's self in the foot. |
I'd propose that it doesn't make much sense to contemplate "a world with patents" versus "a world without patents".
With patents, giant corporations with the power to litigate can stifle innovation and harm the consumer.
Without patents, there is less incentive to innovate, and the lack of innovation is a probable (if intangible) injury to consumers.
The problem exists on two fronts: judicial and legislative: appellate law in this country is created in cases with litigants who have the resources to litigate. And they rarely litigate cases that would create bad law (they'd rather just settle out of court and not risk it). On the legislative end, legislators are beholden to big business interests, so they tend to make protective laws, all other things being equal.
So, there has been an unfavorable trend of the evolution of this area of law for a while. The concept of a patent isn't necessarily flawed (and intellectual property rights aren't going anywhere). Fortunately, I think we're at the beginning of a long term trend toward liberalizing laws. And this is good, because the old economic rules don't apply anymore, so we have to make new rules to save us.
For example, I was reading today that Amazon is trying to crack the same-day delivery market for groceries. (They'll do this at zero profit margin, because they want the "same day delivery" infrastructure for the rest of their business.) This gives them a significant advantage against traditional grocery stores, competing in this market, who need to make a profit to survive.
This used to be known as monopoly leveraging, and it's technically illegal. But we don't enforce antitrust policy anymore in this country because we care more about efficiencies of scale than consumer choice and protection. Oh well. |
It's a waste of hate. Any dyed-in-the-wool allegiance/enmity toward any company, all of which just want your money equally, is unreasonable, bizarre, and pretty cringeworthy. |
It's not whether the concept is original or not. What is relevant is when you talk about 3G technology, it's pretty broad. It's not the 3G technology, it's the types of inventions there are for 3G. 3G is a standard of telecommunications technology. There are different patents for 3G for antennae, for location service, network service, data, and so on, with many different means to reach a similar end. That's where you get your 8,000 patents. Most of these patents belong to Qualcomm.
In this case, we have Samsung's patent (namely U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348). This particular 3G patent is regarding 3G channel coding: " apparatus and method for encoding/decoding transport format combination indicator in CDMA mobile communication system ". This is what is original, unless Apple finds a way to invalidate the patent through prior art or another kind of defense.
A patent is comprised of a specifications and its claims. If just one claim of the patent owner is infringed, the defendant is liable for patent infringement. Here, the International Trade Commission ruled that Apple infringed on claims 75-76 and 82-84 of the ’348 patent.
>"-75-
>
>A Transport Format Combination Indicator (TFCI) encoding apparatus in a COMA mobile communication system, comprising:
>a controller for outputting a 30 bit codeword from among a plurality of 30 bit codewords that corresponds to a 10 bit TFCI information input to the controller from a plurality of possible 10 bit TFCI information,
>wherein the 30 bit codeword output by the controller is equivalent to a 32 bit codeword that corresponds to the 10 bit TFCI information input to the controller.
>
>-76-
>
>The TFCI encoding apparatus of claim 75, wherein each of the plurality of possible 10 bit TFCI information and each of the plurality of 30 bit codewords correspond to each other based on a combination of a basis orthogonal sequence, a basis mask sequence, and an all “1” sequence, the basis orthogonal sequence and the basis mask sequence being two bit punctured equivalents of a basis orthogonal sequence and a basis mask sequence corresponding to the equivalent 32 bit codeword."
>
>"-82-
>
>A Transport Format Combination Indicator (TFCI) encoding apparatus in a CDMA mobile communication system, comprising:
>a controller for outputting a 32 bit codeword from among a plurality of 32 bit codewords that corresponds to a 10 bit TFCI information input to the controller from a plurality of possible 10 bit TFCI information; and
>a puncturer for puncturing two bits from the 32 bit codeword output by the controller, each of the two bits being punctured at a predetermined position, and outputting a 30 bit codeword that is equivalent to the 32 bit codeword output by the controller.
>
>-83-
>
>The TFCI encoding apparatus of claim 82, wherein each of the plurality of possible 10 bit TFCI information and each of the plurality of 32 bit codewords correspond to each other based on a combination of a basis orthogonal sequences, a basis mask sequences, and an all “1” sequence.
>
>-84-
>
>The TFCI encoding apparatus of claim 83, wherein a total number of the basis orthogonal sequences, the basis mask sequences and the all “1” sequence are identical to a number of bits of each TFCI information."
Now, Apple tried to argue that Samsung failed to license their patent under FRAND terms for a patent that may be essential for 3G. However, the ITC was not convinced and therefore Apple was not successful in proving an affirmative defense. This is probably what will come up in appeal. The iPhone 4S and iPhone 5 do not infringe because the patent they are using (a different means to an end) belongs to Qualcomm and has been licensed for use. |
Long story short:
Apple patented the design of the first ipad. When you patent a design someone else has to exactly copy it 100% in order for it to count. That is why design patents usually don't have details like volume buttons or logos. If you move your logo around a bit then the design patent no longer matches your product. Every company does this. (Example: This is the microsoft surface patent. Apples design patent was really vague as a result and people are saying they now own rounded corners. (because one of the multiple bulletpoints describing it said "this device has rounded corners") This is so far away from the truth, as any trip to the store will tell you. Apple still has their patent, and stores still sell tablets with rounded corners.
Here are some other examples. [Samsung]( [Samsung]( [Samsung]( [Apple]( [Apple]( |
I'm not trying to be argumentative here; and by no means do I disagree. In fact, I feel EXACTLY the same about my band and reaching a bigger audience. I maintain while it costs SOOO much to record, we should give the CD away at shows.
However, picture yourself as a multinational brand, and thousands upon thousands of people or groups are using your brand/logo/music to sell their wares, every day. Would you feel differently? Wouldn't you want to at least have a say in who can use your IP? What if you get sued for something misinterpreted as something YOU put out; and your logo is in weekly flyers to members of a racist organization? Now you have to go to court to defend yourself against hungry litigators who want a piece of you.
Anyway, I guess I'm saying in a perfect world, yes you are absolutely correct. But in the american courts, you might lose the ability to reach the people in the way you intend because your IP is dragged through the mud. |
It has been used to convict people in the past. Not as the only piece of evidence, but as one piece to build up a case.
In this instance, he is using that one piece of evidence to build up his case that he was not at the given location. |
u/naljorpa108 is a librarian at the Harold Washington Library and gives a few more details on a /r/chicago thread.
>As a librarian who will be working there (most Mondays & Tuesdays, stop by and say hi, I have a beard & glasses) I'm kind of embarrassed at the headline on the Tumblr post. We are well aware that we are not the first maker space in Chicago. Part of our training was at MSI's Fab Lab (really cool place) and we visited Pumping Station One too (also awesome).
>That picture on the tumblr is not our space, ours is actually a little bigger than that.
>One of our policies is that a staff person has to approve your file before it is run, so no weapons or genitalia will be printed. As far as the noise issue, you can barely hear the CNC mill running if you are standing outside the closed doors.
>We will have some beginner projects that you can customize and make in a short time. Also we want to get people to come in and teach workshops, so if you have a cool project you could share please let us know.
>Glad to see some people on here are as excited as I am about this! |
it's because I'm not a chick that I want this. I don't want to go out shopping and trying clothes on. I'd much rather I sat at home while the computer scanned my size and then I can just choose the style and color I want without having to hold it up awkwardly in the shop or have an awkard interaction with the person running the changing rooms in shops.
then I want a 3D printer, so I can just print them out instead of washing the clothes, it just melts the material they were printed out of and purifies it, bleaches it back to white and all I have to keep buying is colored ink, which I can order online and it gets delivered to my door.
this would also remove the need for numbered clothes sizes, which never seem to fit me quite right (the legs are too long, or the waist is too fat, or the legs flap about while walking). it just scans you and fits the clothes perfectly and if you want you can manually ajust them. |
The idea is that technology advances... Its not static. At some point YOU won't have to draw anything or bring it anywhere or spend all day. Just google, find what you want, click, and browse reddit while your sons birthday present is printed out, or that one Lego piece you lost for your favorite set, or maybe even that coffee table you wanted.
Of course right now it is in its infancy so maybe you shouldn't buy a printer yet .
Just think of porn, years ago you had to go to a store and sneakily buy your smut, now you literally just click and Bam. Titties. |
Don't worry, they already popped for the forseable future. Do not pick up stock picks randomly on Reddit. The likelihood of you getting inside information before millions of investors that work 40+ hours a week searching is incredibly low. You're the lowest of the low in terms of investing, if you see someone telling you to buy a stock, that is a very strong indicator that the stock has already reached an all time high and early investors are looking to dump their stock on some one else
The greatest example of this is FB. It was one of the most hyped stock and expectedly did awful after open. |
Don't worry, they already popped for the forseable future. Do not pick up stock picks randomly on Reddit. The likelihood of you getting inside information before millions of investors that work 40+ hours a week searching is incredibly low. You're the lowest of the low in terms of investing, if you see someone telling you to buy a stock, that is a very strong indicator that the stock has already reached an all time high and early investors are looking to dump their stock on some one else
> The greatest example of this is FB. It was one of the most hyped stock and expectedly did awful after open.
> |
In response to your edit:
Those attributes could be applied to nearly every bot that has graced reddit's comment areas. And we've all seen bots that don't generally contribute to the conversation.
The ease with which bots can be made has led to increased user resistance. Many subs have adopted policies that prohibit all automated comments. Many mods will ban a bot in response to a single user reporting a comment. I have projects that are directly affected by such actions.
My A/B testing has repeatedly shown that including information about a bot and how to contact its developer in each comment greatly increases reddit's acceptance of the bot. Asking developers to include such info isn't unreasonable. Creating a wiki page and linking to it in comments is also solid advice.
Asking devs to not run alpha level bots in massive public subs is just common sense. /r/test, and private subs, are far better targets for testing. |
So, you think you're actually getting enough to understand anything by seeking precis' of the internet? Read what you have time for then. |
It doesn't matter the accuracy of the data if the conclusion drawn from it is wrong. That is the case here as the title states incorrectly that "Android now controls 79.3% of market share."
The data linked defines market share as the percentage of total devices shipped globally from manufacturers to suppliers in the second quarter of 2013 .
This particular data does not read at all to use market share because it does not account for devices in storage waiting to be sold, or for devices in shipment still, or for devices that are currently being distributed, or devices returned to the manufacturer for defects, or devices returned by purchasers, devices that have been sold but not activated, devices that were activated but have since been deactivated, etc.
EXAMPLE: The grocery store has a huge number of brussels sprouts. Do we: (1) conclude that brussels sprouts are the most popular vegetable item, forcing an increased supply to meet demand? Or, (2) do we conclude that brussels sprouts are the least popular vegetable item and because patrons are not purchasing them, the stock is piling up?
ANSWER: We cannot make any conclusion about the popularity of brussels spouts simply from the number of brussels sprouts that were shipped to the store. |
No, actually I don't.
The only reason for increased market share of Android is because of über cheap devices in emerging markets. This is why in north America, those market share numbers mean nothing and are completely wrong. This is also why Apple will likely release a plastic iPhone 5 in a month for $99 to compete with lower-price Android devices for those very same emerging markets, since production costs will be cheaper on a plastic iPhone 5 version.
So then there's a larger screen on Android devices as a selling point. Well that's genuinely a solid feature option. Well guess what, Apple can also release a much larger screen option in a future iPhone model at any time, and iPhone 5 and iPhone 5s (soon) owners will snap it up in droves too.
Competition is a good thing, but if you think developers are going to jump ship and abandon iOS that's absurd. It's where the $$$ is, and will continue to be. If the main reason for increased market share of Android is a lower priced cheap devices overseas, then that isn't where the $$$ is. Follow the money. |
I'll concede that some of the larger screen phones are practically impossible to use with one hand, but I would say that the Note II is a bit of an extreme example since it's more of a phone/tablet hybrid and is at 5.5". My current phone is 4.7" and the only time I need to use two hands is when I'm in landscape mode. During normal operation I never need two hands.
As for weight, the S4 which seems to be the most popular of recent Android phones, is 130g compared to the iPhone 5's 112g. That's not much of a difference for an entire extra inch of screen real estate and for anyone with an iPhone 4S, the S4 is actually 10g lighter than what you are already used to. I know it's a much older phone, but I only bring it up because day one adopters of the 4S still have another two months left on their 2-year contracts...there are probably a lot of people out there who assume that a much larger phone will be much heavier, but I just wanted to point out that is not necessarily the case. |
Lets be honest, CEO's really are responsible for absolute success and failure for companies they lead ! Sigh. There are some studies that would indicate otherwise. Realistically the statistical fluctuation of profits and market forces changing are more likely to have a much broader impact on the company. ( How Algorithims control the world, The signal and the noise)
Argument that Microsoft missed the tablet and smartphone market.
I call utter BS on this argument. ( .( It is obvious that MS had introduced the tablet PC and Pocket PC ( phone OS) in 2000. Unfortunately these products besides their industry specific uses didn't catch fire with the consumer market.
Windows 8 is a complete failure.
when you take into account the contraction in the PC market and the market share taken up by this point it isn't really a failure, and even if it is a failure it is an important one device/ OS unification is bound to happen. Your PC , smartphone, tablet will have cohesive ecosystems that talk to one another. The RT, windows phone 8, and windows 8 are a logical step in this direction. Don't be surprised if the next gen of macbooks has touchscreens. The truth is that Microsoft has enterprise and most users over a barrel with their products. you can complain all you want just look at their bottom line |
People liked his flamboyant and "go-getting" people skills. (Ninja: 30 years ago)
Being one of the early employees at MS he got what would inevitably be a gigantic chunk of change and since he wasn't actually technologically oriented (I don't think) he got to be a manager.
Honestly? He was probably REALLY GOOD for the company. I think he's sort of unfairly being blamed for the poor state of the economy, and MS as a whole. Have they really innovated recently? What new waters they've tried to tread have been too little (and in some cases, too MUCH bad as in.. XBone DRM bad) too late.
He did oversee MS's recent acquisition of things such as Skype, though, which was a pretty good move. |
Late to this particular party, but I want to echo your last sentence. My opinion, Microsoft has failed to innovate and been essentially an industry follower/copycat since Gates left (not that Gates didn't do some copycatting himself...).
Balmer has been terrible and from what I can see MS has become a sick company internally while at the same time extremely arrogant. I mean, low hanging fruit: anybody remember a few years back. I believe it was Microsoft's head of HR Ken DiPietro - big position. Word was guy got the job because he played hoops with Balmer. Guy - if memory serves - ended up "pursuing other opportunities" (shall we say) because he was hitting on employees. Your. Head. Of. HR!!!
When your HUGE company leadership gets into positions based on asskissing a boss who's willing to put people into major positions based on asskissing, your company has a BIG BIG problem. See Brownie, heckuva job. |
WD from what I recall, they are re-branded HGST/Hitachi drives which are in turn manufactured by WD.
It's a bit confusing. The |
Right now the cost:storage ratio for HDDs blows SSDs away. Any situation where you store tremendous amounts of data (there are A LOT of them) it ends up being astronomical cost with negligible gains. The current trend is to use SSD for caching while using normal spinning disks for storage in a durable RAID configuration (with a proper backup solution, of course, as RAID is NOT backup!), replacing bad disks when there is a failure. This is still more cost effective, and it will be for the foreseeable future. |
I work in market research, so maybe I can dispel and clarify some of the things everyone is worried about.
The ability for advertisers/researchers to glean bio-metric data from advertising studies is what everyone doing research wants. Things like eye tracking, facial expression, etc. while a respondent watches an advertisement gives you much, much better data than traditional methods of feedback collection.
Advertisers want to figure out where you're looking, when you're looking, how long you're looking, what your mood is (are you smiling at at an ad that was intended to be funny? are you looking confused? etc.). You simply can't capture this as accurately or timely with traditional scales/open ends/etc.
The problem is no one really has a platform that can track eye movement, facial recognition, body posture, etc. The Kinect does all this. So Microsoft has essentially (by proxy) created a market research holy grail with the Kinect. They're pretty much the only game in town with this potential at the moment. This is very good for them as advertisers/researchers will flock for participation. Not only does the system provide those benefits but it's also an ENCLOSED system, where feedback will be consistent. It's really a win win for Microsoft and anyone using this.
But what about the user (i.e. you and me?) First off, this will absolutely have to be opt-in to participate. To think Microsoft is going to monitor you 24/7 with the Kinect without proper consent, clear indications of when the Kinect is and isn't collecting data, and disclosing the purposes and extent to which this data is used is insane.
It's not just in Microsoft's best interest to protect itself legally (since suing using existing wiretapping laws would be financially disastrous) but also its advertising/research partners could also be included in that suit. In essence, 'something shady' is really not going to happen when it comes to research with Kinect. It simply can't happen or else Microsoft and whoever is working with them is going to be in a gigantic pile of shit that will wreck their finances. |
Well, you may have invented the language, but we Americans perfected it, as we tend to do in everything we stick our fat greasy fingers in. :)
But seriously, I don't know... [snopes]( says it came from capere "to capture", and was later expanded linguistically in the ways you describe.
"I constantly hear or read from journalists and announcers spouting pseudo-facts in very poor English"
I'm sorry, but this was not poor English. As Stephen Fry would attest, languages evolve over time. There are several points I would like to make:
Proper British English is similar to but not exactly identical to our English anymore, and I'd say has key differences from other members of the Commonwealth as well. For example, we don't drive our "lorries", we don't take lifts up to our flats, and we keep that extra "i" out of alumiNUM.
This is an American author writing about the United States federal holiday known to us as "Thanksgiving". He isn't writing to a British audience, but an American one, and to us, "cop" does not refer to constables, but American police.
The Cambridge dictionary does not list "[cop](" as an acronym, but as a slang word. Also included are definitions that state "cop" is a verb, and a noun. "Cop" definitely can still be a verb, as in "cop a feel" or "cop a look" which although refer to more prurient activities, still could also mean "to capture".
Look, I am as angry about the media as you are. I hate inaccurate, hypocritical, and evil media empires as much as you. And I do everything I can to make sure my children grow up with an expanded vocabulary, but are also critical of everything they see and hear in the media, and recognize attempts by other people to use logical fallacies to sway opinion in their favor. As the great [Stephen Fry states so eloquently]( proper grammar is really not as important an issue as some people would like to make it. |
I am not in USA but there is tendency in my country too in last few years that big malls and shopping centers remain open during holidays
Now I am lucky enough not to work in those chains and malls so I do not have to work on holidays and I buy everything I need for holiday , days before holiday
But I guess I am in minority :( because as long as there is enough customers on holidays inside malls and shopping centers owners will have reason to push for those to be working days , because of profit of course |
gew·gaw
/ˈg(y)o͞oˌgô/
noun
noun: gewgaw; plural noun: gewgaws; noun: geegaw; plural noun: geegaws; noun: gee-gaw; plural noun: gee-gaws1. a showy thing, esp. one that is useless or worthless |
It was an ironic response to your point that one would need psychiatric treatment if they couldn't read a message as long as the one you were responding too. I was |
2 things.
It was posted in the /r/technology sub.
Absolutely nothing to do with tech. |
I worked at a restaurant as a cook for a few years. We were never actually open on thanksgiving, but we were required to come in to work for 3-5 hours on thanksgiving to do prep work for black friday morning. (we were next door to a mall) No pay differential, but if you came in for those hours you got to leave early on black friday. So, in a sense it was worth it, but it still sucked. |
I can agree with this. I'm 21 and as an ems personnel, I don't have thanksgiving or Christmas because I'm usually working a 24 hour shift those both days. Its always crushing to tell my parents and my gf that once again I can't see them for those days. Year after year I systematically work those days. Don't get me wrong, I love my job, there's just a tad more paid to me and the other workers there. Its sad to see other ems personnel and dispatchers working their asses off on a holiday and freezing in the cold winter weather but the higher ups don't even have to roll out of bed in the morning. Its a mad world and nothing says Christmas like showing up to multiple suicides on those days and practically walking in blood every holiday. If I ever have kids someday, I will always make sure daddy's home to pass out their presents on Christmas day or cut the turkey on thanksgiving. Sorry this was somewhat off topic but its just how I feel. |
I often think about this in the same manner, we could do amazing things if we all worked together on a project. When we think about alien planets we usually think of that alien life form as being one entity, whereas on earth if aliens arrived they would see infighting and disconnection. I one day want to live in a world where we fund projects together for a common benefit and goal. |
The moon graphic is incorrect. I only checked two of the missions, but more could be incorrect.
The graph shows Apollo 11 as a successful lander mission, while Apollo 11 actually returned from the Moon successfully. How is that not a successful return mission?
Then you go up to the "return" successes, which the chart only lists two (despite way more than 2 missions returning successfully), and one of the two listed return successes: Zond 6, actually was mostly destroyed upon reentry to Earth. It never landed on Mars, just did a flyby and failed on Earth re-entry. It was marked a success for political reasons, not based on an objective analysis of the failure of the mission... |
Because the Russians made their lander's camera lens out of diamond. It fucking melted. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.