Deutherius

I've made my choice. 0

I respectfully disagree - a flamewar looks entirely different and would get the thead locked down immediately. What we are having is a discussion.

Mode:0 ;Author:SS ;Training set:A ;Success rate:66.6667 % Mode:1 ;Author:SS ;Training set:A ;Success rate:63.3333 % Mode:0 ;Author:SS ;Training set:B ;Success rate:70 % Mode:1 ;Author:SS ;Training set:B ;Success rate:70 % Mode:0 ;Author:SS ;Training set:C ;Success rate:66.6667 % Mode:1 ;Author:SS ;Training set:C ;Success rate:66.6667 % Mode:0 ;Author:SS ;Training set:D ;Success rate:13.3333 % Mode:1 ;Author:SS ;Training set:D ;Success rate:10 % Acc LTW:54.1667 % ; Acc DTW:52.5 % Difference:-1.6667 % Working on a speech recognition software for a school assignment. Training set D is unfortunately too different from the rest, resulting in such a low accuracy.

Parallel-Aligned Safe Storage (of) Parental Obligations (and) Replication Terminator (yeah, it's a condom) CARDBOARD

Zero.

It might be just a personal experience, but I have a version of CentOS 6.4 set up in Oracle VM VirtualBox (for some necessary schoolwork and testing) and BOY was that thing a ***** to actually get working properly. Good practice, sure, but sometimes really nervewrecking (especially when VirtualBox updated midway through, breaking nearly everything I had already set up). If I had a spare PC lying around that I could mess with, I'd take the PC over VM any day. (I have never used VMWare Player though, so it could very well be that it just takes two clicks in there and you're done - VirtualBox wasn't that friendly)

I haven't read the patents, but the first thing that popped in my head when looking at the carrier: "Inflatable... Micrometeorites. Space debris. Ouch."

Nodoby said it has to take off under its own power (of the SSO/WK). It can just be strapped to a big rocket as a payload - think Space Shuttle or Buran. I wouldn't write it off as impossible. Impractical, on the other hand... Very much so.

So, if the conditions are just right and the photons just orbit and don't escape... We wouldn't be able to see the photon sphere. Unless we get right in in. Or do photons interact in such a way that we would be able to observe the sphere, be it directly or indirectly?

-2 5char

That would be nice. If, however, all of the money would just get pooled into one giant pool and would be given out to the partners based on the "total time channel was being watched" (as it seems to be said in the article), to get $1.10 per every premium sub your channel would basically have to be in the top 10 watched channels on the entire site. I have no idea how popular Your channel is, but I would expect the average channel to get about as much money per premium sub as they get per viewer monthly ad revenue. <edit>Also, if a user premium subs and is no longer generating ad revenue (because no ads)... You wouldn't get anything extra. Just one type of income would transform into another type of income. Depending on the actual figures, this could either be profitable, wouldn't change anything or would suck majorly.</edit> As you said, we cannot know the actual figures until the feature gets actually launched or more details are revealed - but I think be can both agree that the best case scenario is nabbing BOTH the free AND the paying users, which should be much easier without the paywalls (again, depending on how they work - if you only get sub money from paywalled videos, the revenue vs sub gains will largely depend on number of people subbed AND looking at your channel, which seems even less profitable)

-6 chars

It does sound great, yeah. But there is a problem here - just because it is a paywall doesn't mean people will be paying you. (From the article) Funds from this feature will get pooled. Youtube takes 45 %. The rest will be shared between all the partners, based on the time users spend watching their videos. Now I can dream, alright, but realistically - I would most likely get next to nothing. So the ad revenue would still be my primary source of money - and to exploit that source to the maximum, I would want the maximum of ad-seeing people on my videos, which means I would not want to put up any paywalls. However I look at it, these optional paywalls will only be a money loss to anyone who uses them. (I will be the first one to admit that I lack sufficient information to declare this unquestionably true, but that is the way I see and understand it) I am trying to be optimistic in life. Arguably, I am not all that great at it

I would argue that (almost) every system will seem smooth and fluid right after installing. Give it a few days, a few dozen applications you need/want and let it show you its good and bad side.

-7 0char

But that has nothing to do with the paywall option, which is the main point of my concerns. Even if such a legal problem exists (I am also not a lawyer, so no clue), a simple TOS change so youtube can show your videos to the premium subs is enough. If you don't agree, all your videos will be automatically set to private, so NOONE can see them (apart from you, of course). And that's it, problem solved. The paywall is an extra option you (as a content creator) can use to deny free users your videos (only the premium subs can see those), available to you if you accept the TOS change. It is unnecessary to forgo the TOS change itself and is unrelated to the legal problem we discussed (again, if such a problem even exists - the article seems to imply that this program will only affect those that are partnered with youtube to generate ad revenue. How would you apply this legal problem to the millions of "average joes" that have uploaded videos, but are not partnered? I would imagine that the premium subs will be paying for "not having ads on the videos", which is entirely independent on the video content and uploader, and to "have access to paywalled videos" - you have to sign the TOS changes to even have the option of paywalling your content, so no problems there). No, I believe you misundestood me. I am not arguing and was not implying anything like that (at least willingly). I have no problem with content creators wanting to share their stuff with everyone. Quite the contrary, I'm all for that. I am also not against the necessary TOS changes, and I have no problem with the fact that your videos will be set to private if you don't agree to the TOS changes, if it is really necessary. What I have a problem with is the possibility (not stated or implied <edit>by the article</edit>, just what I fear) of youtube forcing creators to paywall their content for the sole purpose of forcing free users to buy premium subscription. Do not draw any implications from that, that is all I meant. Sadly I am not that optimistic (as to the first part), as I've described multiple times. I wholeheartedly agree with the second part. Yes, but that still doesn't answer my question - why would you want to deny some people your content? I can understand big shows doing that, but we are talking about youtube here - as a content creator, all of your fame and riches come from a single thing - more people watching your stuff. Okay, now it would be two things - people watching your stuff AND people paying the premium subscription (unless you don't agree to the TOS changes, in which case you will get nothing). But realistically, how much will the majority of content creators get from this new feature? Will it be enough to overshadow ad revenue (which, again, will be created by the users without premium sub)? I would think not. And the article seemed to agree. I would (finally) understand blocking your video in certain countries altogether, based on legal grounds (say you are making videos for a company and your contract prohibits you from showing the video in Wherever, for whatever reason), but willingly putting up a paywall, especially if you as a content creator get LESS money from it? That seems illogical.

-5 011char

-5 -5char

I would understand that they have to get your consent before showing your videos to paying customers. But that can be solved by just updating the terms of service, where you will state that you are ok with it, there is no need to add "the option of putting a paywall on your content" - unless my fears are more than just paranoid. I don't understand your second point - the paying customers will be able to get MORE content than the ones that are not paying, that's the whole idea of a paywall - a wall that can only be bypassed by paying. If you buy the premium subscription, you can view the videos with AND without a paywall on them If you are just a free user, tough luck - if there's a paywall, you can't view the video. So I still don't get why this paywall would be a thing - there is no reason for the content creator to willingly deny the free users any of their videos, it would have only negative outcomes - less revenue, less views, being marked as a money-grabber... Especially since the premium subs will be paying to youtube, and the small and medium sized channels will likely not get much of this premium sub money pool (as was stated in the article).

Given that it's your brain making these dreams up, it would be rather surprising if none of it ever made any sense. If the dream makes too much sense, it might just be that the memories it was constructed from are fresh and/or easily accessed, and put into a sequence that just happened to make sense. Or it might really mean something. I'd rather if it didn't, because if dreams are a meaningful part of our psyche, then I probably belong in a lunatic asylum EDIT: Also, I'm slightly disappointed by the lack of double rainbows in your dream.

-5 5char

And I have never said that it is. Yes, I understand what is stated and implied in the article. And yes, I know what a logical implication is. If you look at my first comment (in our conversation), the part about a tinfoil hat was meant to point out that what I'm talking about is just a paranoid fear based on past personal experience. I'm simply afraid that youtube will try to force people to become premium subs by forcing content creators to put up paywalls. The paywall option doesn't make any sense to me otherwise - why would you, a creator, want to cut the number of views your video can have, not to mention all the ad revenue it could generate (because if the only people who can watch it are premium subs without ads...)? Maybe I'm paranoid, but this is the only conclusion I can come up with, and it would suck.

Granted. Your knowledge is considerable, but useless, as everyone starts to speak Chinese. I wish to have an owl, giraffe and a penguin to have a nice conversation with.

Go to the folder where you have KSP installed. Open the file "settings.cfg" with notepad or something similar. Find the line that says "CONIC_PATCH_LIMIT" and change the value to something higher. This will cause the game to calculate your trajectory through more SOI changes - I use 4 for example, but for chaining gravity assists you will probably need more. Be advised that higher numbers cause the calculations to be more demanding, and the trajectories after about 3 or 4 SOI changes tend to be slightly inaccurate. You will likely have expend some dV to correct for this, but it's usually worth it. Yes, timing gravity assists, especially chaining them, is not a trivial matter. That's why I also gave you the option with Pol It can be done, though. There are plenty tutorials on gravity assist if you're interested, just search

Granted. You also get free, delicious and healthy dinners, breakfasts and snacks! The meals are all the same, however, and you get tired of it pretty quickly. Not even a chance of getting anything else. I wish to speak more languages.