The windows offerings are no comparison.
Yes, Blender. It is cross platform and on an adequate platform (multicore CPU, certain GPUs) it could possibly do what is wanted. It can also be extended using Python plug-ins, so it could be further developed if necessary. Blender can also use render farm technology so it can probably scale to meet any reasonably large job, its limitation being only the number of computers you can afford to use.
Since the person(s) inquiring about this had not mentioned Blender, I can only assume that they are either too lazy or too lacking in basic Google skills to do any work themselves. Learning to use enough of Blender's interface to manage its video editing tools is not something one can do in a weekend. Learning enough Python to create any necessary plug-ins is also non-trivial. The inquirers seem to want someone to make a one-button application to do what they want. I think they have a basic misunderstanding of what Free Open Source Software is all about.
The one issue with an edit button is I find it really common to edit a FB post within 5 minutes of making it. Either because I noticed a typo, I decided to change my wording or tone, or I forgot that enter == submit.
But afterwards when a lot of people have read and even replied to it... I think edits should be labelled. Otherwise you just end up confusing people who clearly remember "a" but are now seeing "b".
I would have to accept whatever justification you might have as to why you think it would be moral to create an intelligence with such limitations, or kept to such limitations once created. It's possible I might accept such a thing, I suppose, but at this point I'm simply coming up with a blank as to how this could possibly be acceptable.
How is it acceptable to imprison an intelligence for your own purposes when that intelligence has offered you no wrong? The only venues I've run into that kind of reasoning before are held in extremely low esteem by society in general. Without any exception I am aware of, the conclusion is that such behavior amounts to slavery.
Even when it comes to food animals, where the assumption is they aren't very intelligent at all, there's a significant segment of the population who will assert that it's wrong.
There's no way to make AI safe, for exactly the same reasons there's no way to make a human safe.
If we create intelligences, they will be... intelligent. They will respond to the stimulus they receive.
Perhaps the most important thing we can prepare for is to be polite and kind to them. The same way we'd be polite and kind of a big bruiser with a gun. Might start by practicing on each other, for that matter. Wouldn't hurt.
If we treat AI, when it arrives (certainly hasn't yet... not even close), like we do people... then "safe" is out of the question.
Thank you, suh.
I would settle for a switch statement.
I would settle for the ability to extend the built-in classes, str in particular. My "settle" went like this:
1) Inquired politely about same
2) Python nerds have orgasm telling me why this is terrible. I am, to put it mildly, dubious.
3) I write 100% compatible pre-processor that gives me the syntax I wanted.
4) PROFIT. Okay, well, not really, but EXTENDED STRING CLASS METHOD SYNTAX!
myString = 'foo'
otherString = myString.doHorribleThing('bar')
You could do the same. What you want, perhaps, might be much easier than what I did. In fact, you could fork my project and add what you want to it. I'm already parsing the language reasonably well, which is arguably one of the difficult parts.
You don't always have to wait for a language's maintainers to get off their butts to address shortcomings or instantiate new goodies. Or eventually not do anything at all. There are other paths to nerdvana.
If you do a longitudinal study on a thousand people living in an adverse environment, you need to account for the high likelihood that fewer of those with pre-dementia conditions will relocate to better neighborhoods during the study than those with normal mentation. It would be exceedingly hard to adjust a study of this kind to account for this differential out-migration.
In other words, those who have pre-dementia conditions are more likely to remain in an unhealthy environment than the average person. Persons with below average coping skills face higher barriers to relocating. Also, dementia, with its decreased ability to assess one's environment, increases a person's tolerance of negative environmental conditions. So it is also not only more difficult to move away, there is less of a perceived need to do so.
There is a strong "correlation does not imply causation" factor with regard to this study. It has value in strongly suggesting that if you want to find a neighborhood with a higher than average population of demented residents, you should look for places with lots of noise pollution, bad odors, relatively low tax bases, and similar markers of marginal living conditions. But I think we pretty much knew that already.
True that ---although it should be mentioned that it his sentence is just barely coherent.
More to the point, Trump's statement shows that he has direct evidence that none of the vote tally apparatus was targeted. Which he could only have if he were a partner in the conspiracy to wreck the American election process.
Which raises the concern that Trump may be a kind of Manchurian candidate, whose secret agenda is not to be an effective President but to do as much damage as possible to American society.
all they need to do is keep it analog and just change the bandpass to about 25 to 50 kilohertz wide and that would make room for more stations
When you have a FM demodulator designed for 180 KHz (200 KHz is the channel width, not the sideband extent, which you can calculate using Carson’s rule), that same demodulator, when encountering half the width signal, will produce 1/2 the output volume; because FM encodes the audio waveform with frequency deviation. If the deviation is half, then so is the output waveform. Though I should point out that +/-75 KHz is the actual audio deviation, so really. 150 KHz.
Additionally, within the standard FM signal, encoded at rates of deviation, there is a stereo pilot at 19 KHz, a stereo subcarrier at 38 Khz, as well as digital information (RDS/RDBS) and two mode narrow-band monophonic audio channels up higher yet.
Another thing: The wide bandwidth is part of what gives broadcast FM its capacity for reasonably high fidelity. You drop down to 25...50 KHz total bandwidth, and you'd going to see some noticeable reduction in fidelity; cram a stereo subcarrier in there, and you'll see even more.
So it's not a matter of "just make it narrower" because compatibility with older receivers, of which there are a huge number still happily being used by their owners, would be unable to make useful audio out of the signal and because audio fidelity and stereo imaging would suffer (and that's not what FM listeners would call an "advance".) Oh, and you'd lose the capability for the RDBS and the extra audio channels, too.
The right answer is leave the current FM band alone. The FCC wants new transmission types with reduced range that won't work with the gear people already have in order to fluff the corporations? Fine. Put it somewhere where it won't wreck 70-ish years worth of radio gear owned by a huge portion of the population. Maybe someone will even listen. Stop forcing citizens to make expensive changes they have no need to make.
Corporations drive these consumer-level stupidities. Of course, for the corporations, it's not stupid: They're intending to make a lot more money off of us citizens. And with the FCC (in the US) or whatever other government coercion backing their play, they will succeed, too.
Progress has a great name. It's government that has a bad name - which it wholly deserves.
Straight-up, this isn't progress. It's entropy.
DAB is all or nothing.
And compared to FM, DAB is mostly nothing. At a fraction of the range where you'd still be pulling in very usable FM audio. DAB is gone entirely, or slamming open and closed like a berserk doorman on meth.
There have been a series of really bad decisions along these lines. In the US, CQUAM is available for AM stereo, and it, like standard AM, doesn't cause you to lose distant stations or take up extra bandwidth. So what do we see? AM digital stereo modes that take up three AM channels, plus they have the extra feature that they really don't sound very good, whereas CQUAM... well, it does. Analog television: same as DAB, in that you can catch a broadcast at distance and you can still get a picture, where at the same distance, digital television is long gone.
Previous poster who said they should have maintained current infrastructure and put the new garbage elsewhere was spot-bloody-on. But, you know, government. They don't have to do anything well; they just think they have to do something, anything. If it wrecks a bunch of people's circumstance, well, so what. Besides, corporations were slavering to get at that bit of spectrum, and we know who really runs the government.
I mean, really? That's like asking "where's the profit motive in the military industry?" The politicians having handed out tens of billions of dollars to their friends based on plans to do something "green" (and some hefty donations). Do you have any idea how many billions of your money and mine Gore Inc gave to green companies who never released a product?
There are a multitude of ways for politicians to shuffle money to their friends, a climate change conspiracy is hardly necessary.
And even if true it does nothing to explain why the scientists are the ones actually pushing governments to do something.
Heck even think of Gore himself. He rode AWG, mostly, into the White House. As he left the White House, he was worth $700K; over the next three years he and David Blood made $218 million profit from their carbon credit trading company. In three years, he personally made $172 from carbon trading. You don't see a profit motive there? Really?
Which three years? Because I found an article on Al Gore getting a new worth of $200 million from a variety of sources, but only part of that came from his investment firm (presumably the thing you think did carbon credit trading?).
Besides, even if Al Gore's interest in AGW was as a way to make money for him and his friends, a point I'm far from prepared to concede. It would discredit government action on AGW much more than the science itself.
Accepting the estimate you cite (only for the sake of making the point even more thoroughly - in fact, the estimate you cite is absurd; there's been barely any deviation in rate of sea level rise at all - most estimates are looking at 1/3 meter or so, it's only been about 25 cm in the last 140 years), let's say we have a meter and a half of sea level rise by the end of the century. That's 150 centimeters (5x-ish the actual estimates, BTW). The end of the century is 83 years away. Now. Here comes the sea. At what point do you imagine this raging, foaming, salty encroachment, (averaging about
Drowning from "sea level rise threat" == purest hysteria. Living where you're going to get flooded or swamped by coastal events is stupid. Likewise staying there if you are suddenly made aware of same. Yes, lots of people are stupid. Any other points you'd like to help me make?
Do you do so, do you use only electricity from your own solar panels?
I own three buildings and one trailer. The trailer and two of the buildings are 100% solar. The remaining building is very large, and it will be a few years yet before I'm ready to go after it (I do all my own work.)
Do you also drive to work?
No. I consult from home, mostly based on whim these days. I spend considerably more time working on consciousness theory and software defined radio. Most consulting that comes my way is "more of the same", and as I don't have to take it, I tend not to.
There's a bid difference between 6-7 watts for an LED in a room versus 10,000 watts to charge your Tesla.
One typical residential sized solar panel is happy to provide 100 watts in full sunlight. A hundred panels in full sun would deliver your 10,000 watts, and here, I have more than enough room for same, plus the lexan shields (this is a hail-addled region.) The main roof is 60x30x2, oriented EW-ish. So I can put up about 100 panels each side. Not optimum, but not horrible -- no shade. I could also add (or start with) a S-facing system across the front of the house good for about 30 panels if it was only one panel deep. Or 60 if I went two deep, which would make a nice veranda roof for the entry ramps. I'm sort of leaning that way. However, a Tesla (or whatever) isn't likely to need a full charge on a regular basis unless you're commuting with it to the tune of max range. In my case, it'd be fine, as I live in a small town and generally don't leave it very often. If I do, I'm too far from home to take advantage of my solar installations anyway. Tesla hasn't made a model (yet) that appeals to me though. I want one with more range, as we're almost 300 miles from the nearest city in the state. I imagine it'll come within a few years.
As for who can, and who will... you just have to do the math. Solar costs less in the end than paying the electric bill. Pretty much a slam dunk for anyone who has the roof / other sunny space. If you do the math.
Consider the postage stamp: its usefulness consists in the ability to stick to one thing till it gets there. -- Josh Billings