Messages - CWuestefeld [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: prev1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 198next
161
Do other eBook readers "hide" files depending on how they were acquired?

On my 3rd generation Kindle, nothing is hidden. If you connect the device to your PC by USB, it just looks like a flash drive.

Of course, the file names are inscrutable. But you can figure it out by opening on the device the book you're looking for. This causes its bookmark file to be re-written, which gives it the newest timestamp in the directory. And if there's DRM on the bok, being able to see the file may not help you.

162
Living Room / Re: Global Warming & Statistics
« on: February 03, 2013, 07:53 PM »
Would you sign over your back yard so a family can move there to live?

Real estate really isn't the problem, there's more than ample room for everyone. Check my math, but by my calculation, if you divided the world's population of 7 billion into families of four, and gave them each 1/4 acre to live on; then add on another 20% for infrastructure (roads, schools, stores, etc.), then the entire population of the earth would fit into an area the size of Greenland -- which, we're told, will be pretty comfortable next century ;) .

Damage to culture is still worth discussing, but that question cuts both ways: what's being asked is a significant change in the way of life for the industrialized "rich" nations. I'm sure those who already have an opinion on the outcome will all be able to find moral arguments supporting either side of that argument.

Here's an article I read this evening, it is *not* science but written by a scientist

I respect Brin, particularly as a SF writer. But he is squarely missing the mark in this essay -- again, in the same manner I've been complaining about. Although in his introduction he very briefly mentions costs and alternatives, his discussion never actually visits those topics. The entire essay is entirely devoted to whether someone should be considered an open-minded skeptic, or is a closet denier. But knowing what label to hang on a person doesn't get us any closer to deciding if any action needs to be taken, and if so, which one.

163
Living Room / Re: Global Warming & Statistics
« on: February 03, 2013, 01:20 PM »
the increasingly obvious fact we cannot continue to go down the present road we're on without suffering dire consequences.
...
those who are polar bears mostly think it sucks

With all due respect, 40hz, your comment is exactly the kind of lack of debate I'm talking about. You seem to have jumped directly from a scientific observation about climate, to a determination that high-carbon-footprint industries must be reined in, without engaging in any kind of cost-benefit analysis whatsoever. Granted, you might be turn out to be right, but you don't get any points toward winning the debate if you don't show your work: explain *why*, including the cost-benefit.

The tone of most skeptics' delivery is guaranteed to alienate the majority

That's true. But on the other hand, Al Gore has admitted that he's willing to exaggerate the arguments if that's what it takes to make his point. When (at least) one side of the debate (maybe both) is willing to engage in intellectual dishonesty in order to achieve their own ends, the chances of reaching the best outcome is rather poor.

164
Living Room / Re: Global Warming & Statistics
« on: February 02, 2013, 07:49 PM »
It seems to me that although there's significant questions about the extent of climate change, and the future trajectory (and even more so, its causes), there's enough serious science behind it that we ought to be paying attention.

What I find most frustrating in the "debate", though, is the lack of ... debate. Nearly everyone seems to be concentrating on whether the Earth is warming. Surely that's an important question, but it's very, very far from all that needs to be decide in order to conclude on policy.

Even if this is happening, we need to understand

  • What the possible climate outcomes are, and the relative likelihoods of each.
  • In human terms, what are the costs associated with those outcomes.
  • What can be done to avoid those possible outcomes?
    • How likely is it to work?
    • What is the cost of pursuing this alternative?

I mean, just because the earth is getting warmer, sea levels may rise a bit, optimal farming areas may move, etc., that's not in itself reason to just radically change our way of life to significantly curtail carbon emissions.

To begin with, some of the changes may actually be net-positive (looking at the big picture across all humanity; clearly there are always significant costs to change at the individual level): plants like warm (other things being equal), and having the opportunity to farm up into Canada, northern Asia, etc., could help global food production. It's not likely everything is bad, so once you add all the pros and cons, what's the total damage?

We frequently hear the most apocalyptic scenarios, probably because those are the ones that sell the most newspapers. But unsurprisingly, we're discovering that at least the worst scenarios will almost certainly not come to pass. For the more likely scenarios, what are the pros and cons?

Radical changes to our lifestyle might curtail the climatic changes. But what will it cost us to do so? I mean, if we can't run our industry at full capacity, it's going to mean that some people won't be able to get health care, so people won't have food. Certainly, a lot of people aren't going to be able to go visit grandma at Thanksgiving, and commuting (for those of us that will still have jobs) will get a whole lot more expensive. When we compare the costs of averting danger, are you so sure that they're actually smaller than the cost of the problems that are predicted?

And, of course, there may be other "third roads", various approaches of "climatic engineering" that may avert the problems while costing far less in terms of our way of life. Of course, these have their own attendant risks, but it's another thing that ought to be weighed before deciding any policies.

It's just silly to jump from scientific evidence of a warming earth directly to "oh my god, we've got to shut down half our industry". But who's actually discussing this aspect of it, at least in the theater of broad public discourse?

165
Also ACDSee has a fairly attractive offer at the moment which only runs for another 1.5 days or so, but me being 'unexperienced', it doesnt give me enough time to test it and get a feel for it ...

What ACDSee does, it does pretty well. Its biggest strength is that its database is really only an optimization: the primary datastore is the images themselves. All of the data is written into EXIF and IPTC data in the image files. This ensures portability and longevity of the data.

On the other hand, it has some significant holes that it doesn't do. The two biggies in my book are:
  • Face recognition - Many modern tools (Picasa, Lightroom, and heck, even the free bundleware that came with my new printer) will automatically recognize faces and tag them with names. I've developed a workflow that uses Picasa to do the job and import its data, but it's rather cumbersome.
  • Photoshop plugins - ACDSee Pro claims to be a full-featured image editor, and it is to a certain degree (e.g., non-destructive edit). But Photoshop plugins do a lot of the gruntwork for me (noise reduction, contrast adjustment, sharpening), and ACDSee isn't compatible.

All things considered, I find that ACDSee is still the best option. But like so many other programs, it makes me feel like it's just the least bad one out there.

Pages: prev1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 198next
Go to full version