On the plus side, The jetpack does look like it would be marginally more easy to set down in say, a supermarket parking lot.
Yes, but if the choice after setting it down is either leaving it in the parking lot or walking around the supermarket with it still attached to your back, I'm not entirely convinced of the practicality.
Contrary to popular myth, beginning auto rotation generally requires time for the pilot to respond.
Is that really a popular myth? The vast majority of people have never even heard of auto-rotation. Helicopter pilots know all about it. The only other group of people I can think of are those who know very little about real aviation but have played a couple of flight sims (i.e. people like me), and we're well aware that it takes some effort to initiate auto-rotation.
And there are clear ways in which they could improve Portal. Here's one: LONGER.
I sympathise that it was over all too quickly, but Portal was the perfect length. It was part of its charm. Making it any longer would just have been dragging it out.
Another way to improve it? Bundle it with HL2 episode 3.
Can't argue with that. I thought the idea of episodic gaming was that the games came out in quick succession? I'm not a fan of the idea, but at least a short wait between releases would have been some consolation.
Thank you! Finally someone explains the fundamental difference, which seems to have been missed by not only the Wired article, but also every other commenter so far. This blog post also helped.
I still don't understand how this works, but at least now I understand why it might!
It doesn't sample a 200x200 square and give you a 1024x768 image, it samples random pixels from the range you are looking to come out with in the end.
Can you explain how picking a pixel at random is better than sampling every 4th pixel? Surely the randomness just increases the chance that you'll miss some essential feature in the image?
Say the size of a potential tumour in the image is 5 pixels wide. Sampling every 4 pixels would guarantee you catch the tumour (the number of pixels to sample is chosen on the basis of the smallest size tumour which it is necessary to catch). Sampling an identical number of random pixels, on the other hand, would mean there is a good chance you will not sample any data point within the tumour, resulting in it being totally missed.
In practice, they have used this to great efficacy, so the arguments of "it won't work" are invalid. It has, it does.
I'm not arguing that "it won't work". I have not done the research to support such a claim, and I suspect I do not have the requisite technical expertise to do said research within a reasonable period of time.
What I am saying is that I've got no idea how it can possibly work. It goes against all common sense. I was hoping someone could explain it to me by pointing out the flaws in my logic. No-one's managed to do so yet.
Sorry to be dense, but I don't understand where compression comes into this. You're not compressing anything, you're somehow discovering data that wasn't sampled in the first place. I don't see the relationship between the two concepts.
Can you explain what I'm missing, in terms of my original example? If there's a dark spot on the image indicating a potential tumour, then that information is there in your data, and no clever processing is necessary. If the dark spot is not there, no amount of processing will make it appear. What am I missing?
As soon as I read the article, it seemed fishy to me. How can you create data where it doesn't already exist? If you take a scan of a patient, a tumour will either show up or not show up in the data. If it shows up, there's no need for enhancement. If it doesn't show up, no amount of enhancement can cause it to do so.
Then I came across this blog post by Terence Tao, one of the researchers mentioned in the Wired article.
It has some very interesting explanations of how this is supposed to work. I'm still not sure that I'm convinced though. Common sense is still screaming at me "this cannot possibly work" - but then that happens with quantum mechanics too.
There are more than four times as many people in China as there are in the U.S. So yeah, for total population weight, it's going to be a pretty close run thing.
You're saying that it makes no difference to Microsoft whether IE appears last on the list 50% of the time (what is actually happening) as opposed to 20% of the time (what should be happening)?
It's okay, Facebook have only patented displaying a news feed in entirely the wrong order, no matter how many times you tell it to display my feed in chronological order FFS.
Given that the best humanoid robots around today fall over while walking up a set of perfectly level stairs, and then can't get back up again without human intervention, I say "Project M" is definitely worth a go. After all, the robot might not fall over for ages if we're lucky.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and in this case that couldn't be more true. Unless I can see the final renders from the projects in the book, I have no idea whether the book is of any interest, regardless of any praise or criticism the reviewer may have for it.
I was hoping to help out by posting some links, but I can't find the requisite images anywhere (admittedly I only spent a few minutes looking). I did find the next best thing, a video on Brito's own blog.
By that definition, walking up to their terminal and hitting it repeatedly with a baseball bat would also be a denial of service attack. So would physically restraining them in their chair such that they were unable to reach the keyboard.
This seems to me to be an overly broad definition. The term "denial of service attack" has taken on a more specific meaning than "any means of denying access to a computer system".
Slashdot Mirror
On the plus side, The jetpack does look like it would be marginally more easy to set down in say, a supermarket parking lot.
Yes, but if the choice after setting it down is either leaving it in the parking lot or walking around the supermarket with it still attached to your back, I'm not entirely convinced of the practicality.
Contrary to popular myth, beginning auto rotation generally requires time for the pilot to respond.
Is that really a popular myth? The vast majority of people have never even heard of auto-rotation. Helicopter pilots know all about it. The only other group of people I can think of are those who know very little about real aviation but have played a couple of flight sims (i.e. people like me), and we're well aware that it takes some effort to initiate auto-rotation.
And there are clear ways in which they could improve Portal. Here's one: LONGER.
I sympathise that it was over all too quickly, but Portal was the perfect length. It was part of its charm. Making it any longer would just have been dragging it out.
Another way to improve it? Bundle it with HL2 episode 3.
Can't argue with that. I thought the idea of episodic gaming was that the games came out in quick succession? I'm not a fan of the idea, but at least a short wait between releases would have been some consolation.
Thank you! Finally someone explains the fundamental difference, which seems to have been missed by not only the Wired article, but also every other commenter so far. This blog post also helped.
I still don't understand how this works, but at least now I understand why it might!
It doesn't sample a 200x200 square and give you a 1024x768 image, it samples random pixels from the range you are looking to come out with in the end.
Can you explain how picking a pixel at random is better than sampling every 4th pixel? Surely the randomness just increases the chance that you'll miss some essential feature in the image?
Say the size of a potential tumour in the image is 5 pixels wide. Sampling every 4 pixels would guarantee you catch the tumour (the number of pixels to sample is chosen on the basis of the smallest size tumour which it is necessary to catch). Sampling an identical number of random pixels, on the other hand, would mean there is a good chance you will not sample any data point within the tumour, resulting in it being totally missed.
In practice, they have used this to great efficacy, so the arguments of "it won't work" are invalid. It has, it does.
I'm not arguing that "it won't work". I have not done the research to support such a claim, and I suspect I do not have the requisite technical expertise to do said research within a reasonable period of time.
What I am saying is that I've got no idea how it can possibly work. It goes against all common sense. I was hoping someone could explain it to me by pointing out the flaws in my logic. No-one's managed to do so yet.
Sorry to be dense, but I don't understand where compression comes into this. You're not compressing anything, you're somehow discovering data that wasn't sampled in the first place. I don't see the relationship between the two concepts.
Can you explain what I'm missing, in terms of my original example? If there's a dark spot on the image indicating a potential tumour, then that information is there in your data, and no clever processing is necessary. If the dark spot is not there, no amount of processing will make it appear. What am I missing?
As soon as I read the article, it seemed fishy to me. How can you create data where it doesn't already exist? If you take a scan of a patient, a tumour will either show up or not show up in the data. If it shows up, there's no need for enhancement. If it doesn't show up, no amount of enhancement can cause it to do so.
Then I came across this blog post by Terence Tao, one of the researchers mentioned in the Wired article.
It has some very interesting explanations of how this is supposed to work. I'm still not sure that I'm convinced though. Common sense is still screaming at me "this cannot possibly work" - but then that happens with quantum mechanics too.
There are more than four times as many people in China as there are in the U.S. So yeah, for total population weight, it's going to be a pretty close run thing.
You're saying that it makes no difference to Microsoft whether IE appears last on the list 50% of the time (what is actually happening) as opposed to 20% of the time (what should be happening)?
It's okay, Facebook have only patented displaying a news feed in entirely the wrong order, no matter how many times you tell it to display my feed in chronological order FFS.
Given that the best humanoid robots around today fall over while walking up a set of perfectly level stairs, and then can't get back up again without human intervention, I say "Project M" is definitely worth a go. After all, the robot might not fall over for ages if we're lucky.
No, I think it's quite clear that VAC does not operate based on stats.
Except the ratio of cheat-code to non-cheat-code running on your system.
However, if the DoE can perfect this larger version of an artificial retina, then the company Second Sight promises to commercialize the implant
So if the government invents it, this company promises to make money from it? That's real philanthropy for you!
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your pr0n scraper.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and in this case that couldn't be more true. Unless I can see the final renders from the projects in the book, I have no idea whether the book is of any interest, regardless of any praise or criticism the reviewer may have for it.
I was hoping to help out by posting some links, but I can't find the requisite images anywhere (admittedly I only spent a few minutes looking). I did find the next best thing, a video on Brito's own blog.
This is most likely because English is not Allan Brito native language.
It not?
I believe him, but I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you.
He told us he did it.
By that definition, walking up to their terminal and hitting it repeatedly with a baseball bat would also be a denial of service attack. So would physically restraining them in their chair such that they were unable to reach the keyboard.
This seems to me to be an overly broad definition. The term "denial of service attack" has taken on a more specific meaning than "any means of denying access to a computer system".
Yes
tl;dr
You needn't bother adding wiki to the end; a Wikipedia page is almost always the first link anyway. :)
That's odd, because whenever I search for something, the first link is always to Wikipedia.
Ever hear of a dead-cat-bounce?
Yeah, that sort of squishy-crunch sound?
Oh sorry, I misread the question.
couple of sit ups releases far more thermal energy than could be adsorbed by the body from a cell phone.
That's why I never exercise.
It's okay, this is all a part of the wider Google Graffiti settlement.