Comment Duh (Score 2) 121
In the cloud, obvs.
In the cloud, obvs.
Yes, and they could copy the Mona Lisa so everyone could see it up close.
...beep.
No, two new videos! That's got to be twice as good!
Well, apologies for not spotting that. I allowed my automatic assumption that there was no possible good reason for doing this to lead me to not checking the text.
That said, I still can't see any good reason for doing this. "Management-imposed restraints" could mean anything. Does "management" think two 5 minute videos costs less in bandwidth than one 10 minute video?
Was "management" perhaps previously in charge of disposable razor marketing?
Is there any actual reason you've decided to put TWO videos in this article?
Does the end of part one mark a change in topic? It doesn't seem to from the transcript. In fact, you seem to have cut one of your own questions out, according to the transcript.
One video is already an abominable waste of space. Two is just freakin' stupid unless you've got a good reason. A very good reason.
So? Can German courts not set precedents for future German decisions?
Take one face detector from OpenCV and use it to find a nose. Take the skin color from the nose and then see what parts of the body are skin colored in the photo. If there is lot of skin color shout NUDE!
And if I give it a photo of a nose?
Ascension is generally more metaphorical than ascent.
Technically the Pluto-Charon system is not a primary with a satellite, but a double system. The center of mass of the system is not within either body, but in the space between them.
Technically, I don't think any such defintion has ever been formally adopted by the IAU (and they're the people who matter when it comes to deciding whether anyhing is technically anything in space).
There was a proposal to reclassify Pluto and Charon as a double planet system, but it was rejected, so they remain (dwarf) planet and moon.
No, the moons have been renamed now that it's a dwarf planet. Sharon, Tracy, Debbie, Jessica, and Steve.
Steeeve!
Most definitely deliberately ironic.
Why Didn't Voyager Visit Pluto?
Why is this asked as a question, when the summary does in fact have the answer? Why not just headline it thus:
Why Voyager didn't visit Pluto
Then I'd be less likely to mistake it for another speculative piece of guff from a professional blog writer, which we already have plenty of.
The headline begins with "My" and the submitter is...
Oh look, somebody else who apparently doesn't understand how computers work.
Oh look, someone else who loves to belittle people on the internet who aren't quite as knowledgeable as them. Not very original...
Fine, then: Chrome could at least make it less easy for other programmes to alter its configuration. Can't it monitor its files for externally-applied changes and revert/inform? What about encrypting the configuration on disk (at the cost of inconveniencing the user, or at the very least inconveniencing other programs who want to alter it)?
I'd expect readers of this site to be able to grasp that, but it keeps coming up so maybe not...
Forgive me, oh wise one, for not meeting your lofty expectations. I shall go back and resit the Slashdot entrance exam immediately.
There's really no need to be such a douche to someone for a fairly off-hand comment just because they don't know everything.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
