Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I thought it wasnt possible (Score 3, Informative) 130

by khellendros1984 (#47553849) Attached to: A Fictional Compression Metric Moves Into the Real World
FTA:

And Jerry Gibson, a professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, says he's going to introduce the metric into two classes this year. For a winter quarter class on information theory, he will ask students to use the score to evaluate lossless compression algorithms. In a spring quarter class on multimedia compression, he will use the score in a similar way, but in this case, because the Weissman Score doesn't consider distortion introduced in lossy compression, he will expect the students to weight that factor as well.

The scoring method as stated is only useful for evaluating lossless compression. One could also take into account the resemblance of the output to the input to allow a modified version of the score to evaluate lossy compression.

Comment: Re: name and location tweeted... (Score 1) 877

Bags still went through X-Rays then, and a determined person can still get weapons through security *now*. I'm more worried about someone coming into a school with an AK and grenades than I am the same thing on an airplane. Before, the assumption if someone showed up armed on a plane was that they were going to have it flown somewhere to ransom the passengers, and that you'd be best off staying quiet and giving the hijacker what they wanted. Now, you'd have a crowd of people tackling the guy, and there'd be no chance of a hijacking anyhow with the reinforced cockpit bulkheads. Those changes alone would mean that there are many more-attractive targets in the country.

You can believe what you want, but a tiger-repelling rock is still a tiger-repelling rock.

Comment: Re:It's a shame (Score 2) 285

by ChromeAeonium (#47540203) Attached to: Greenpeace: Amazon Fire Burns More Coal and Gas Than It Should

It's a shame with all this hostility towards environmentalists.

Greenpeace is not an environmentalist group.

But use cleaner and more expensive energy?! Fuck no!

Right there, that's your problem. Better has to come at a cost. It's like a religion, and you have to pay for your sin. We could have nuclear, but nope. We have to convince people to live, as you put it, 'simpler and deeper,' change their lifestyles to match what you find aesthetic, rather than improve the means of production.

Cheaper cars, lower fuel expenses, no cable bill, no expensive cell phone bills because I don't have a smart phone, cheaper electricity because I don't have a TV in every room or any other energy sucking toys.

Found that guy. Okay, you like that, fine, do your own thing. Acknowledge that not everyone wants to live the same way.

I walk to local stores - they're less than half a mile away. See, being "green" also saves money on exercise. Why pay hundreds of dollars and get locked into a shitty gym contract when walking and carrying packages is great exercise?

Unless you've been working all day, you're tired, it could rain at any moment, you have more to carry than you can, ect. Then your activity becomes a privilege, which as it turns out is one of the main criticisms of the pseudo-environmentalism movement. Ever lived like that by necessity? I have, it sucks.

things would clean up on their own because we would spend time doing important things instead of wasting it on shit doing shit.

And of course, you know what the important things are. Have you ever considered that, maybe, the reason people dismiss environmentalists is because so many people who take up the mantle of 'environmentalist' are only using pseudo-environmentalist ideas to justify their own sanctimonious self righteous superiority. A different approach is needed.

Comment: Re:Greenpeace Blecchhh (Score 1) 285

by ChromeAeonium (#47540143) Attached to: Greenpeace: Amazon Fire Burns More Coal and Gas Than It Should

Yep. I see them blatantly lying about my field (plant science) all the time, sometimes even attacking research, and their efforts have helped set it back by at least a decade. I have a very hard time trusting them about anything else when they so readily disregard facts to drum up controversy.

Comment: Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (Score 1) 285

by ChromeAeonium (#47540055) Attached to: Greenpeace: Amazon Fire Burns More Coal and Gas Than It Should

Do you realize how stupid that is?

No. Let's just say you have someone who you know lies, and lies often. The last thing the said was a blatant lie, the thing they said before that was also a lie. Now they make a new claim. Do you run out and put time and effort investigating the claim, or just assume that, given the history of falsehoods and deceit, this is also likely a lie. Greenpeace lies. A lot.

Now, you're right, what they say here could be truthful, they could very well be right, but I see no reason to assume this is anything but yet another hit piece in a long line of deception, and as such, I'm going to default to making the safe assumption that this is not true. It's a boy who cried wolf situation. I'm not going to evaluate every questionable claim biased and frequently unscientific organizations like Greenpeace make. If someone with an ounce of credibility supports these claims, then maybe this will be worth thinking about. In the meantime, it's just Greenpeace being Greenpeace.

Comment: Re:Put it another way... (Score 4, Insightful) 157

by alphatel (#47538241) Attached to: Soccer Superstar Plays With Very Low Brain Activity

You don't need much brain for running around kicking a ball.

You're absolutely correct in a very zen kind of way. In order to be in the zone, or flow, you still need to make decisions such as "lean left, kick right", or "stop short, pass forward", but they key is to not let those minor mental decisions get in the way of your physical ability to execute. Some people are born with the ability to simply "do it", other may take years of practice to learn to let go of the process, but in the end it's all about realizing your potential without anxiety about the outcome.

Science

+ - Soccer Superstar Plays With Very Low Brain Activity

Submitted by jones_supa
jones_supa (887896) writes "Brazilian superstar Neymar's (Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior) brain activity while dancing past opponents is less than 10 per cent the level of amateur players, suggesting he plays as if on "auto-pilot", according to Japanese neurologists Eiichi Naito and Satoshi Hirose. The findings were published in the Swiss journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience following a series of motor skills tests carried out on the 22-year-old Neymar and several other athletes in Barcelona in February this year. Three Spanish second-division footballers and two top-level swimmers were also subjected to the same tests. Researcher Naito told Japan's Mainichi Shimbun newspaper: "Reduced brain activity means less burden which allows [the player] to perform many complex movements at once. We believe this gives him the ability to execute his various shimmies." In the research paper Naito concluded that the test results "provide valuable evidence that the football brain of Neymar recruits very limited neural resources in the motor-cortical foot regions during foot movements"."

Comment: Re:I don't see what good unlocking does (Score 1) 77

by khellendros1984 (#47535575) Attached to: Compromise Struck On Cellphone Unlocking Bill

Very few phones work on both CDMA2000 networks (Verizon and Sprint) and GSM networks (AT&T and T-Mobile), and they're hard to find in U.S. stores.

If true (I don't keep track of which phones are available through whom and do what), I don't see what bearing that has on whether it's a good idea or a bad one to make it easier to force carriers to unlock the handsets that they sell. Even if there were *no* dual-network phones, you'd be able to move between a choice between two carriers (and the MVNOs of each), and that's better than being forced to buy a new phone.

Mail order doesn't let you hold the phone and get a feel for its size, weight, screen, and buttons before you buy.

Well, I can't argue with that; if you don't have physical access to a device, then you can't judge it first-hand based on its physical attributes. In my case, I went to the store of my chosen carrier, tried out their phones in the store, and bought a variant online that the store didn't carry. Having the opportunity to handle a phone before buying it varies on a case-by-case basis so much that I'm not quite sure why you mentioned it.

Comment: Re: name and location tweeted... (Score 1) 877

I never said that an airplane was a public place; I said that an airport is. 13 years ago, I could walk off the street up to a gate without a ticket. If it weren't for the current security paranoia, I'd still be able to do so.

But that has little if nothing to do with law about "public spaces".

Defaria's comment, which I was replying to, seemed to badly confuse ownership, privacy, public access, etc, and was basically verging on being a conspiracy theory rant. I was trying to bring them back down to earth and temporarily ignoring the question of who, if anyone, was behaving reasonably in the situation.

+ - Wikipedia to US Congress: Stop Trolling->

Submitted by alphatel
alphatel (1450715) writes "Wikipedia has blocked anonymous edits from a congressional IP address for 10 days because of "disruptive" edits. These otherwise anonymous edits were brought to light recently by @Congressedits.

The biography of former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was edited to say that he was an "alien lizard". Mediaite's Wikipedia page was modified to label the site as a "sexist transphobic" publication."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re: name and location tweeted... (Score 1) 877

Denver International Airport is owned and operated by the City and County of Denver Department of Aviation. It's public land. That aside, your comment doesn't make sense. Privately owned property can be operated as a public place, without affecting the ownership of the property. If I owned a restaurant, it would be my private property. By opening it for business and inviting customers in, it remains my privately-owned property, but it also becomes a public place, since I'm admitting the public to it. At night, when I close for the evening, I'm denying access to the public, and it's no longer a public place. That changes in the morning when I open the restaurant again.

None of that has anything to do with privacy, government regulation, government taxation, etc. Further, if you've let someone into your house, you haven't lost ownership of anything. You haven't even lost ownership if you open your house to the public; you've just made it a public space, until you say otherwise. If you invite specific friends in (rather than the public at large), not only does it stay in your possession, but it's also still a private place.

There's got to be more to life than compile-and-go.

Working...