It's not that the researchers didn't like the idea of algae biofuel, they were just preoccupied with their plan for a helium lifter system to help them get hunny for their rumbly tummies...
And you, what, are you going to live your life merely adjacent to the world, resigned to your impotence, determined to forever console yourself that things you disagree with are inherently beyond your influence?
I'm sure you can imagine a humanoid robot being a bit more comfortable to be around than something out of the terminator series at the doctor's office as an example.
"What? My appointment with doctor Smith isn't until four o'clock?
I'll be back."
You'll be back? Well I should certainly hope so, my silver-skulled simpleton! Late for your last appointment, early for this one, it's a wonder you ever should turn up at all, you Meat-packed metal moron, you colossal chrome cretin!
Harsh, man. Way harsh. Any day now. You'll see. You'll all see!
Yeah! GNU Hurd is gonna have lasers that shoot from its eyes, atomic hellfire breath, two claw-thingies, and be able to do everything better than Linux like a million times over!*
(*theoretically, based on models of the respective algorithms as run on Turing machines)
Lego Star Wars Lego Batman Lego Indiana Jones Lego Indiana Jones 2
I don't know, I felt like they got tiresome very quickly. Of course, I've mostly played the DS versions so maybe that doesn't do it justice. Just seems like too much emphasis on finding hidden junk.
My daughter's birthday is tonight at a Chuck E. Cheese - wondering if they still have that game there? That would be awesome!!!!
I'm guessing not. It's an old game and vector graphics monitors are hard to replace these days. I expect that mostly, these days, you'll find it in places like Funspot, or not at all.
The corresponding "Empire Strikes Back" game was good, too.
I see a lot of people talk about this difference. What is the difference between looking at an object reflecting light, and an object that is emitting light of the same intensity?
Well, that's the trick. With a photosensor an LCD screen can ramp up its display brightness to fit the ambient lighting - and ramp it back down again if it gets dark... But LCD screens often can't get bright enough to do well in sunlight, while a reflective screen will be reflecting some amount of light comparable to the ambient light.
I sort of suspect the OLED screen won't be as visible in bright light as the E-ink - but I haven't seen it, so...
I was an art student, so i had color theory. I have a good understanding of additive and subtractive color systems. It's been my understanding that you can create a certain color either through reflective or emissive means, but ultimately your eyes are receiving a certain nm of light at a certain intensity
Just want to correct something:
Light can be made up of one or more wavelengths of light. Purple, for instance, is a combination of light from the two ends of the visible spectrum - as opposed to violet, which is short-wavelength light. The different types of cones in our eyes respond to different, overlapping ranges of wavelengths. So if we saw true yellow light, it would trigger the red and green cones, because both types of cones respond to yellow light (but to a lesser degree than they would respond to red or green) - this is why the primary color system works. If we see light that contains red and green wavelengths, it's the same to us as if we'd seen actual yellow light.
They're proposing that an OLED E-Reader which cannot be read properly in sunlight will be "game changing". Forgive me for being not quite so optomistic.
I'm trying to figure out whether that's a clever pun (since we are talking about visibility in different light conditions) or just a typo...
Because some people actaully want Windows without the Microsoft licensing. Wine running on *nix or Mac will always be a different experience. Filesystems are laied out differently, permissions work differently, desktops integration works differently, the UI of the system around the windows apps is different.
Any of that could be handled by a motivated distribution maintainer. That is to say it would be quite possible (and not prohibitively difficult) to build a Linux distro around Wine that would act very much like Windows. Don't like Unix permissions? Well, modern Linux has ACLs much like the ones on Windows. Don't like the Linux UIs in which Wine would ordinarily run? Don't use 'em. Don't like the filesystem layout? Don't use it. There is nothing about Linux or Unix that requires you to use that traditional hierarchy. Not even "init" has to be in its traditional location, you can specify, in your bootloader, what executable should be run on boot-up.
Where you'd start to see a real difference between an OS designed as a Windows clone and an ordinary OS repurposed to just run Wine all the time, I think, would be the infrastructure. A real Windows clone would be able (most likely) to run Windows hardware drivers, for instance, and its display and audio systems would be modeled on those of Windows. This could have real advantages, especially if what you're running primarily is Windows software.
The poster did not question his freedom to do so. He asked _why_ he would contribute to one particular project rather than another project. Your reply did not answer the question that was asked.
Yes, it did. The answer is, "because he wants to." No other answer is required.
Look, I think we can all agree that this guy can do whatever the hell he wants to with his time.
Nevertheless, I think it's not unreasonable, conversationally, to call into question whether what he's doing is really sensible. That's what people are really saying when they ask "why do this?" The answer to that question is not "because it's his time and he can do it if he wants to". A proper answer would address the question of how this work is valuable.
To me, it's not. I can't think of something I'd personally be less interested in than running a clone of MS Windows. It's like I'd get all the things I hate about Windows with few of the benefits (based on the assumption that compatibility wouldn't be as good as with real MS-Windows...) But I can acknowledge that it's useful work even if it's not something I want. If a school computer lab somewhere can save money by running ReactOS instead of Windows, good for them. I'm not personally affronted that they'd do this rather than run Linux...
And not taking every one of those into account makes it not a preview somehow?
And yes having someone draw a picture of what the camera was going to take a photo of would also be a preview.
But that assumes the person who's drawing the picture has some idea of how the photo will look when it's taken. That takes a certain photographic expertise.
If you're good at photography, you probably have some idea of how your photo will turn out, due to the skills you've built up and the experience of taking lots of photos and seeing how they turned out - but maybe you also play it safe and bracket your exposures to increase the odds of getting a good shot...
A good preview feature codifies a lot of that knowledge of photography. It is more than just framing information, or some arbitrary representation of what the shot will look like. It is specific information about the resulting image that camera with those settings will produce.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that the researchers didn't like the idea of algae biofuel, they were just preoccupied with their plan for a helium lifter system to help them get hunny for their rumbly tummies...
And you, what, are you going to live your life merely adjacent to the world, resigned to your impotence, determined to forever console yourself that things you disagree with are inherently beyond your influence?
I'll stick to my plan, thanks.
Dude, while most people around here have heard of Lost In Space, most are too young to have actually watched the original TV series. Shame.
Aw, it was only fifteen years ago that they showed it on Sci-Fi Channel... :)
That reminds me, I wanted to add "Noxious Nickel-plated Ninny" and "fallacious ferrous fool" to the list...
I give up
I'm sure you can imagine a humanoid robot being a bit more comfortable to be around than something out of the terminator series at the doctor's office as an example.
"What? My appointment with doctor Smith isn't until four o'clock?
I'll be back."
You'll be back? Well I should certainly hope so, my silver-skulled simpleton! Late for your last appointment, early for this one, it's a wonder you ever should turn up at all, you Meat-packed metal moron, you colossal chrome cretin!
Oh, the pain, the pain of it all...
So, what, are we gonna end up with like 10,000 photos of the face on Mars, or the "pyramids"?
s/then/than/
If you look closely, that's not the only error I copy/pasted from toastar's post... :)
your message's meaning is inverted!
This being Slashdot, we could fill a Library of Congress worth of DNF writing. Hosted on a Beowulf cluster, of course.
The real challenge there is getting Congress to allocate funds to establish this library.
Every universe has its black holes.
Like goatse
Harsh, man. Way harsh. Any day now. You'll see. You'll all see!
Yeah! GNU Hurd is gonna have lasers that shoot from its eyes, atomic hellfire breath, two claw-thingies, and be able to do everything better than Linux like a million times over!*
(*theoretically, based on models of the respective algorithms as run on Turing machines)
All of the Lego movie games are great fun.
Lego Star Wars
Lego Batman
Lego Indiana Jones
Lego Indiana Jones 2
I don't know, I felt like they got tiresome very quickly. Of course, I've mostly played the DS versions so maybe that doesn't do it justice. Just seems like too much emphasis on finding hidden junk.
I loved that game too.
My daughter's birthday is tonight at a Chuck E. Cheese - wondering if they still have that game there? That would be awesome!!!!
I'm guessing not. It's an old game and vector graphics monitors are hard to replace these days. I expect that mostly, these days, you'll find it in places like Funspot, or not at all.
The corresponding "Empire Strikes Back" game was good, too.
I have yet to find a game based on a movie that hasn't sucked.
What about "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial"?
Bah! Without an edit post feature I have no remorse.
XD Good point.
really fucking annoying.
Sorry, spelling mistake. On the upside it has made me realise I'd forgotten to install the English dictionary for Firefox! Oops.
Dang. I'd started to like the "clever pun" theory. :)
You what's actually harder then Getting in the kernel community, Writing Good Sentences!
an incomplete sentence
I see a lot of people talk about this difference. What is the difference between looking at an object reflecting light, and an object that is emitting light of the same intensity?
Well, that's the trick. With a photosensor an LCD screen can ramp up its display brightness to fit the ambient lighting - and ramp it back down again if it gets dark... But LCD screens often can't get bright enough to do well in sunlight, while a reflective screen will be reflecting some amount of light comparable to the ambient light.
I sort of suspect the OLED screen won't be as visible in bright light as the E-ink - but I haven't seen it, so...
I was an art student, so i had color theory. I have a good understanding of additive and subtractive color systems. It's been my understanding that you can create a certain color either through reflective or emissive means, but ultimately your eyes are receiving a certain nm of light at a certain intensity
Just want to correct something:
Light can be made up of one or more wavelengths of light. Purple, for instance, is a combination of light from the two ends of the visible spectrum - as opposed to violet, which is short-wavelength light. The different types of cones in our eyes respond to different, overlapping ranges of wavelengths. So if we saw true yellow light, it would trigger the red and green cones, because both types of cones respond to yellow light (but to a lesser degree than they would respond to red or green) - this is why the primary color system works. If we see light that contains red and green wavelengths, it's the same to us as if we'd seen actual yellow light.
They're proposing that an OLED E-Reader which cannot be read properly in sunlight will be "game changing". Forgive me for being not quite so optomistic.
I'm trying to figure out whether that's a clever pun (since we are talking about visibility in different light conditions) or just a typo...
Again, who cares about "a good preview feature". It's just a preview, I never claimed good.
The point is, you're not actually getting a useful preview of how the photo is going to look. That's the difference.
Because some people actaully want Windows without the Microsoft licensing. Wine running on *nix or Mac will always be a different experience. Filesystems are laied out differently, permissions work differently, desktops integration works differently, the UI of the system around the windows apps is different.
Any of that could be handled by a motivated distribution maintainer. That is to say it would be quite possible (and not prohibitively difficult) to build a Linux distro around Wine that would act very much like Windows. Don't like Unix permissions? Well, modern Linux has ACLs much like the ones on Windows. Don't like the Linux UIs in which Wine would ordinarily run? Don't use 'em. Don't like the filesystem layout? Don't use it. There is nothing about Linux or Unix that requires you to use that traditional hierarchy. Not even "init" has to be in its traditional location, you can specify, in your bootloader, what executable should be run on boot-up.
Where you'd start to see a real difference between an OS designed as a Windows clone and an ordinary OS repurposed to just run Wine all the time, I think, would be the infrastructure. A real Windows clone would be able (most likely) to run Windows hardware drivers, for instance, and its display and audio systems would be modeled on those of Windows. This could have real advantages, especially if what you're running primarily is Windows software.
The poster did not question his freedom to do so. He asked _why_ he would contribute to one particular project rather than another project. Your reply did not answer the question that was asked.
Yes, it did. The answer is, "because he wants to." No other answer is required.
Look, I think we can all agree that this guy can do whatever the hell he wants to with his time.
Nevertheless, I think it's not unreasonable, conversationally, to call into question whether what he's doing is really sensible. That's what people are really saying when they ask "why do this?" The answer to that question is not "because it's his time and he can do it if he wants to". A proper answer would address the question of how this work is valuable.
To me, it's not. I can't think of something I'd personally be less interested in than running a clone of MS Windows. It's like I'd get all the things I hate about Windows with few of the benefits (based on the assumption that compatibility wouldn't be as good as with real MS-Windows...) But I can acknowledge that it's useful work even if it's not something I want. If a school computer lab somewhere can save money by running ReactOS instead of Windows, good for them. I'm not personally affronted that they'd do this rather than run Linux...
And not taking every one of those into account makes it not a preview somehow?
And yes having someone draw a picture of what the camera was going to take a photo of would also be a preview.
But that assumes the person who's drawing the picture has some idea of how the photo will look when it's taken. That takes a certain photographic expertise.
If you're good at photography, you probably have some idea of how your photo will turn out, due to the skills you've built up and the experience of taking lots of photos and seeing how they turned out - but maybe you also play it safe and bracket your exposures to increase the odds of getting a good shot...
A good preview feature codifies a lot of that knowledge of photography. It is more than just framing information, or some arbitrary representation of what the shot will look like. It is specific information about the resulting image that camera with those settings will produce.