It's possible, in the sense that you could create a lens that would create an effective focal length of a comfortable distance (like a camcorder viewfinder) so that content on the back face of the lens would be clear, but the lens geometry would probably have to be so large that you couldn't actually close your eyelid over it.
2) CD's do not use lossy compression from the master tape; that is, a CD represents very accurately the master tape.
This is your wrong assumption, and why you don't understand his point. A "master" today will often be recorded in 24 bit at 96KHz or even higher. Hence CD's 16-bit, 44KHz format is NOT an accurate representation of the master. There is a good deal of loss from downsampling in the digital conversion.
It's entirely possible that a smart lossy compression algorithm -- using the high quality master as input -- could produce a reproduction of higher quality than the "lossy compression" of straight downsampling to CD format.
use Privoxy on my Linux and Unix machines, and while it's not as user-friendly as Proxomitron, it's easily as effective.
I'd dispute that. I made the jump a few weeks ago, and never looked back. Privoxy doesn't have a control panel, but it's WAY simpler to configure if you know how to edit a text file. The simple declarative syntax is really powerful and easy to understand, and it's all in one file. Proxomitron's mess of rules and separate text files for matching sites was a nightmare.
No one ever, ever refers to such a thing with no moving parts as a motor, until today
Probably because such devices are rare.
but it's apparently correct because of some loose dictionary.com definiton.
No, it's correct because that's the definition of the word. Just because you've created some narrower meaning in your mind doesn't make it so. I imagine that many people considered "vehicle" to mean "something that conveys cargo on land or on water" before airplanes were invented.
If it has no rotor, I dare say it isn't a motor.
That's funny. You must be terribly confused by the way all those space vehicles get into orbit without motors!
That's an interesting point. I know I sometimes feel drawn to a tv broadcast of a movie that I own or could easily rent. I think--seriously--watching broadcast tv is still a bit of meta-social event. There is something about knowing you're watching something at the same time as everybody else.
I've thought about this myself. My wife thinks I'm nuts when I watch a movie on TV that I own on DVD. But on some subconscious level it does have aspects of being a shared experience. That's pretty sad, I guess.
The L in TLC originally stood for Learning. It reminds me now of the urban legend that Kentucky Fried Chicken was officially renamed "KFC" because they stopped using actual chicken.
A) Watch what the networks want you to watch, when they want you to watch it. Or, B) Watch the content that you want to see, when you want to see it.
By choosing A), you've proven that you're the sheep. Do you also have to be presented with a limited selection of books by major publishers order to decide what you want to read?
they should blast the audience with emp energy. take out cell phones and cameras alike
Yes!
Then I'll corner the film piracy market with my portable 8mm film camera, which will still make a perfect, er, near perfect copy of the film after an EMP burst.
The page you listed shows some excellent examples of spiders that have two very obvious "primary" eyes, surrounded by groups of much smaller eyes. Was that supposed to be a counterexample to your argument?
The original poster's point was that both fuel cell and battery-powered cars use electric motors, and carry an onboard source of electricity.
I still don't understand how you can't see that an internal combustion engine is fundamentally different from that model. Here's a hint: look for electric motors.
* It may do 0-60 in 4 seconds, but so can lots of vehicles if you do hairy modifications to the engine and drivetrain. The car is tiny and light, obviously, since it needs only 200 horsepower to produce those figures.
Which makes the fact that they compared it to supercars designed to go 200mph extremely stupid.
Why didn't they run it against something like the Caterham Superlight? Because it would get it's ass kicked in the same 0-60 test, for around one quarter the price. Oh, and you can carry twice as many people in the Caterham.
One of the main reasons electric car sales are not picking up is that they are percieved to be slow pickup vehicles. Looks like this wont be an issue any longer.
Right, now they know that a single-seat electric car made entirely of exotic ultra-lightweight materials can have good pickup. Still some work to do before the same can be said of an electric "normal" car.
Fuel cell and "conventional battery" cars are very closely related. They both use electric motors to move, which are powered by chemical reactions that produce an electric charge. The only difference is the nature of the chemical reaction.
Can you explain what bizarre thinking leads you to believe that internal combustion engines are "electric cars" by that definition?
"Flapping wings" are also at least an order of magnitude more technically complex than a conventional fixed-frame "spinning blades" (e.g. every other non-rocket powered aircraft in existence) design.
A design like this isn't going to be ready for military use for 50 years, if ever.
The best real-world example of this is probably Diablo. Others disagree, but I think the Diablo games suffer greatly from their randomized dungeons. I find it difficult to immerse myself in a world that is so obviously created with the roll of the dice, rather than handcrafted by an artist.
I agree that at the right level of granularity (the construction of objects that aren't obviously unique in their construction, like trees) than randomization is a good way to avoid the "tiled" scenery problem.
When you can render enough FPS, the only improvement left to make...
Right, because we will never want better image quality than Quake 2.
... is better timing. That requires help from the gfx hardware, nothing difficult though, the Amiga could do it 15-20 years ago or something like that.
Timing? Yeah, it's called vertical synchronization and double or triple buffering, and every graphics card in existence has it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's possible, in the sense that you could create a lens that would create an effective focal length of a comfortable distance (like a camcorder viewfinder) so that content on the back face of the lens would be clear, but the lens geometry would probably have to be so large that you couldn't actually close your eyelid over it.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
</obvious>
The Sears tower still rules. Period.
This is your wrong assumption, and why you don't understand his point. A "master" today will often be recorded in 24 bit at 96KHz or even higher. Hence CD's 16-bit, 44KHz format is NOT an accurate representation of the master. There is a good deal of loss from downsampling in the digital conversion.
It's entirely possible that a smart lossy compression algorithm -- using the high quality master as input -- could produce a reproduction of higher quality than the "lossy compression" of straight downsampling to CD format.
The game will surely be even better when you run it on the upcoming Bitboys Oy graphics cards!
WHY ALL the CAPITALS?
I'd dispute that. I made the jump a few weeks ago, and never looked back. Privoxy doesn't have a control panel, but it's WAY simpler to configure if you know how to edit a text file. The simple declarative syntax is really powerful and easy to understand, and it's all in one file. Proxomitron's mess of rules and separate text files for matching sites was a nightmare.
Wow, you're gonna ride this sinking ship right to the bottom, huh?
Be sure to let NASA know about your little theory on the non-existence of rocket motors.
but it's apparently correct because of some loose dictionary.com definiton.
No, it's correct because that's the definition of the word. Just because you've created some narrower meaning in your mind doesn't make it so. I imagine that many people considered "vehicle" to mean "something that conveys cargo on land or on water" before airplanes were invented.
If it has no rotor, I dare say it isn't a motor.
That's funny. You must be terribly confused by the way all those space vehicles get into orbit without motors!
No. A motor is by definition "one that imparts motion". This device certainly qualifies.
I've thought about this myself. My wife thinks I'm nuts when I watch a movie on TV that I own on DVD. But on some subconscious level it does have aspects of being a shared experience. That's pretty sad, I guess.
TLC
You mean the fashion and home decorating channel?
The L in TLC originally stood for Learning. It reminds me now of the urban legend that Kentucky Fried Chicken was officially renamed "KFC" because they stopped using actual chicken.
Are you that much of a sheep?
Huh?
A) Watch what the networks want you to watch, when they want you to watch it. Or,
B) Watch the content that you want to see, when you want to see it.
By choosing A), you've proven that you're the sheep. Do you also have to be presented with a limited selection of books by major publishers order to decide what you want to read?
Yes!
Then I'll corner the film piracy market with my portable 8mm film camera, which will still make a perfect, er, near perfect copy of the film after an EMP burst.
The page you listed shows some excellent examples of spiders that have two very obvious "primary" eyes, surrounded by groups of much smaller eyes. Was that supposed to be a counterexample to your argument?
Shots of ruined Hobbiton were shot, at least, for Frodo's vision in the mirror.
I still don't understand how you can't see that an internal combustion engine is fundamentally different from that model. Here's a hint: look for electric motors.
Which makes the fact that they compared it to supercars designed to go 200mph extremely stupid.
Why didn't they run it against something like the Caterham Superlight? Because it would get it's ass kicked in the same 0-60 test, for around one quarter the price. Oh, and you can carry twice as many people in the Caterham.
Right, now they know that a single-seat electric car made entirely of exotic ultra-lightweight materials can have good pickup. Still some work to do before the same can be said of an electric "normal" car.
Fuel cell and "conventional battery" cars are very closely related. They both use electric motors to move, which are powered by chemical reactions that produce an electric charge. The only difference is the nature of the chemical reaction.
Can you explain what bizarre thinking leads you to believe that internal combustion engines are "electric cars" by that definition?
What the hell does that mean, other than "I'm about to generalize ALL overseas development from ONE anecdotal example."?
Pet Peeve #843289: The fact that ALL SUV owners have a canned speech to rationalize the fact that they needed to buy their overpriced penis extension.
A design like this isn't going to be ready for military use for 50 years, if ever.
I agree that at the right level of granularity (the construction of objects that aren't obviously unique in their construction, like trees) than randomization is a good way to avoid the "tiled" scenery problem.
Right, because we will never want better image quality than Quake 2.
Timing? Yeah, it's called vertical synchronization and double or triple buffering, and every graphics card in existence has it.