You cannot measure if the particle has been measured. Your own act of measuring collapses the wave funtion, there's no way to know if it has been measured already at the other end without being told that it has/hasn't happened. You can be sure of -what- they will have measured though.
For third-person shooters it makes a lot of sense to me. It's more like defining the direction the camera should orbit, than it is defining which direction to look at. Don't know what game teached me to rely on it, but I'm pretty bad when a third-person game doesn't give me that option.
hmmmm, how about tilting the treadmill as you walk into a certain direction? Like how they simulate accelleration in flight simulators? Gravity is simply an accelleration itself, after all.
I am sure I didn't think this tilting roll-anywhere treadmill through thoroughly enough, still, why wouldn't it work?
Check the movie. It's not about looking around - indeed that wouldn't work. It's about tracking the direction from which you're looking -at- the tv, and shifting (not rotating) the camera accordingly. Sadly only works for one person at a time, but I bet the effect is quite uncanny.
...well to me at least, is that the edited scenes (yes with overstated screenjarring during the more brutal moments) are actually more disturbing to watch (in a good way) than watching the same things happening in clearly visible low-poly animation. The power of suggestion at play.
Weird in the sense that the people with their underwear in a knot over this manhunt business are still going to cry out over these less disturbing and plainly silly rendering resources being on disk, and the fact that hackers have removed the elements that make the scene more chilling.
But I guess they will want to blow off no matter what the game actually looks like.
Did you ever build any type of mechanical or electronic device? Did it work perfectly the first time? Almost certainly not, unless it was extremely simple. But did you throw it away because it didn't work perfectly? Of course not. Did you think that over?
Nothing is perfect. As to what the 'acceptable' failure rate is, I'd say 0%. That's what we need to shoot for. Shoot for? We're talking what is acceptable and what is not. One shoots for the ideal, but accepts the acceptable. Anything below acceptable is -in-acceptible. You're both saying that the current system is inacceptible, and that you accept it.
And we shouldn't ban the Death Penalty because a few people get put to death wrongly. Or even a few tens of people. See? you do accept it.
Can't find that second image you mention, but you do realize the light direction is from below in the first one, don't you? Those are just craters, not bubbles. The 'stains' could still be holes or caves I guess, but bubbles?
Sounds more like photons _gain_ a tiny amount of energy when traveling through populated space, due to dark energy (see OP link). Maybe they don't lose anything in the void.
Slashdot Mirror
You cannot measure if the particle has been measured. Your own act of measuring collapses the wave funtion, there's no way to know if it has been measured already at the other end without being told that it has/hasn't happened. You can be sure of -what- they will have measured though.
For third-person shooters it makes a lot of sense to me. It's more like defining the direction the camera should orbit, than it is defining which direction to look at. Don't know what game teached me to rely on it, but I'm pretty bad when a third-person game doesn't give me that option.
hmmmm, how about tilting the treadmill as you walk into a certain direction? Like how they simulate accelleration in flight simulators? Gravity is simply an accelleration itself, after all.
I am sure I didn't think this tilting roll-anywhere treadmill through thoroughly enough, still, why wouldn't it work?
The matter is only the medium. What is traveling is the wave.
Right?
I'm up for a device that is recognized as a chip by readers, and just spews out random garbage. Let them track that.
Check the movie. It's not about looking around - indeed that wouldn't work. It's about tracking the direction from which you're looking -at- the tv, and shifting (not rotating) the camera accordingly. Sadly only works for one person at a time, but I bet the effect is quite uncanny.
6: Telling slashdot about my awesome awesome setup.
...well to me at least, is that the edited scenes (yes with overstated screenjarring during the more brutal moments) are actually more disturbing to watch (in a good way) than watching the same things happening in clearly visible low-poly animation. The power of suggestion at play.
Weird in the sense that the people with their underwear in a knot over this manhunt business are still going to cry out over these less disturbing and plainly silly rendering resources being on disk, and the fact that hackers have removed the elements that make the scene more chilling.
But I guess they will want to blow off no matter what the game actually looks like.
http://gamevideos.com/video/id/15918
Riight, that's what I meant. Cough. Never mind though, as said, I'm out.
I'm out.
... demonstrated a form of 'strap-on jet wing' that lets a user truly fly through the air. ...as opposed to what? Untruly flying through the air?Can't find that second image you mention, but you do realize the light direction is from below in the first one, don't you? Those are just craters, not bubbles. The 'stains' could still be holes or caves I guess, but bubbles?
Sounds more like photons _gain_ a tiny amount of energy when traveling through populated space, due to dark energy (see OP link). Maybe they don't lose anything in the void.