It's not that frame rate is more important than resolution. It's that both need to be good enough; for you, 1080 is good enough a lot of the time. I tend to run 2560x1440 at about 100-120 fps. That 4K monitor could still have been a good choice since you could render at lower resolutions, if you used it for other work that did benefit (perhaps video, CAD, or many windows). Just not at all costs (such as too steep a downgrade in refresh rate).
Almost the right question. I suspect the positive effects have everything to do with having a routine that promotes breaks. Substituting soda would also be negative.
Except the open source part meant: 1) They could make the modifications, 2) they could share those modifications, 3) the maintainer (or anyone competent) could have vetted and merged the changes, 4) there was no need to make the changes.
The breakage in this case happened because they made the change carelessly and chose not to participate in the usual quality control. And it caused a major security flaw in the program they force on users specifically for security. I'll grant you the situation would be no better with non-free software, and the carelessness in security critical contexts is a bigger issue, but open source had relevance.
There's a complicated relationship between USB-C and anything (mostly using alternate modes). The most commonly supported video over type C is probably DisplayPort alternate mode, which is distinct from DisplayPort over Thunderbolt alternate mode, HDMI alternate mode, MHL alternate mode, DisplayLink (which is a brand of USB attached video controllers, with several incompatible versions), or a variety of other proprietary formats (such as Gemini PDA's HDMI adapter dongle). As for which of these your device supports, there's a chance you'll find a logo if it supports Thunderbolt 3 but otherwise you're basically left to try it blindly.
Is it okay if I blame the peripheral manufacturer for deliberately making the peripheral nigh impossible to use without their specific proprietary software? Because DisplayLink is one of many that do. They advertise it as a feature that their devices are hard to use.
What this video shows is that a human would have had a hard time avoiding the collission if watching only through a video monitor showing this video feed. That isn't the case for either the supervisor or the control system.
This is the answer. YouTube Red is not a service at all, it is a taunt; "not available in your country". The YouTube app instructions literally tell us to use options that are not on offer and we have to search to find out it's for no reason.
It doesn't help much if major venues host his story without addressing its veracity. For instance, this bit about paid priority for those who need it. The key words are "paid" and "need"; these are markets not currently being singled out for this particular extortion, because of the law he intends to repeal. Of course this is hugely unfair as the telecom companies aren't allowed to perform the same type of extortion the pharmacological ones can.
I don't have a TV. I still happen to like both Scrapheap Challenge and Mythbusters, and there are some other shows that can be interesting or amusing, such as How It's Made or Glee (do wish they'd stop putting so much awful drama in). Interests vary, naturally.
Your very first claim is false: in Preferences - Advanced - Firefox updates, you can easily set it to ask or never check.
The menu bar can be accessed by hitting Alt, and it can be unhidden by going Hamburger - Customize - Show/Hide Toolbars - Menu Bar. While hiding it is arguable it provides more space for content. The weird thing is the amount of blank space left behind.
How many did you poll to conclude "most people"? I'd be surprised if it was a whole dozen... and the "none of my friends" part makes me wonder how many just won't broach the subject, if you fly off the handle like this at the mention of it.
One of my reasons to use Firefox is that it at supports ad blocking on Android.
No, it's not new, and this isn't poking around in defenses, simply because there was a complete absence of defenses. The programming terms for the missing class of checks are input validation and sanitation.
This was the equivalent of someone handing you an order form where you fill in both price and quantity, you filling in the wrong price and handing it back, then them reading your price and going with that, no comments. And after you instead of using the incorrectly priced service told them they should perhaps check against their catalog prices, they sent the police after you. Note that until the subject was brought up they had no clue of either how many or how severe these mismatches had been, nor was there any indication why they happened. The only confirmed case was also one where no service was used and thus no loss was involved.
To make your analogy more fitting, the other day a neighbour walked up to my door and called in "hello, did you forget to close the door?" because it was ajar. My visitor had indeed failed to pull it shut. Nobody was jostling my fourth floor bedroom window. The purpose of the door is to let people in; I had opened the door to let someone in; and I was alerted that perhaps it was open for more than I had planned.
The adage for this type of behaviour is shooting the messenger.
The reason you don't need to download a program to type on your PC is simply that it is bundled with the OS. Which is exactly the case with this keyboard app. The difference is that HTC apparently contracted some third party keyboard rather than retheming the AOSP default keyboard, when they decided they wanted to put their own look on it. This choice was probably to save costs as they wouldn't need to update the app themselves. They use a nonstandard one because people judge the value of the phone based on the default keyboard, among other things, rather than go looking for a keyboard they like and can install on whatever phone they get. SNAFU all around. When MS bundle a third party app in this manner, it's usually less critical (such as that horrendous phone game Windows 10 keeps advertising) or they are more thorough in pretending they made it themselves (DoubleSpace, xcopy, etc).
For the moment, it's pretty closely tied. But both OSVR and SteamVR do function on GNU/Linux, and if I recall correctly nvidia recently added the direct mode (after a few mishaps including a driver release that simply refused to let us access VR headsets it recognized. OpenHMD works on VR device drivers that are properly free software. There's lots of work to be done still.
The difference is merely in granularity; one is performed in the build time linker (aka static, ld), the other in the run time linker (aka dynamic loader, ld.so). The latter can be done in advance (prelinking), the former has to. The run time linker doesn't have information on all the intra-object links, so cannot operate at the level the build time linker does. That granularity might make a difference; it moves from up to about three (code, data, rodata) randomized pointers per program file to the same per object file (or possibly function, if the compiler splits them). The sort of exploit code this is supposed to mitigate doesn't need to hunt for all of those but typically a specific one, though, and the mitigation has been found to be fairly weak.
I merely commited the sin of RTFA; the exact sentence was "Such side effects caused 20 men to drop out of the study and were reported by many others," not external factors. They also put the word monogamous (which, if accurate, addresses your second point; bear in mind the women agreed to the study) where you placed heterosexual. I simply did a (somewhat hasty) reading of what they presented, where I considered what the stated claims look like if the tone is removed or flipped. By contrast your "debunking" directly contradicted the article with supposition.
There's certainly no reporting bias here - among 270 men in the trials, 11 simply didn't reach the chosen threshold of 1/15th normal sperm count in six months, 8 didn't recover within a year after stopping the treatment, 20 dropped out because of side effects while many more reported them (to the degree they stopped taking on new participants - back in 2011), 4 achieved pregnancies within a year while under the chosen threshold. All durations reported are in "up to" form, and the fertility of their partners was not indicated (around 10% have issues while trying, per womenshealth.gov). Only 66-69 of them (by somebody's rounding) stated they would refuse to ever attempt the method again, "so perhaps the side-effects weren't all that bad after all" according to Alan Pacey (whose connection to the study was left unclear). It's unclear if this was before or after they learned of how well other subjects did. The article also carefully describes the women only as "partners", despite heterosexuality being quite relevant to the study. The journalist went with "safe and effective", quoting "extremely effective" also from Allan Pacey, while not addressing the "need for... reversible" part. I'm mildly curious where the "safe" came from.
The worst part? Compared to regularly used hormonal treatments for women, this probably is "safe".
You are, of course, free to invent your own way to make this material and to then release it to the world, open-source style
At which point the airports are, in turn, not able to use it because they're commercial use and the techniques you just (re-)invented are freshly patented (close enough to sue, anyway). Or at least it's expensive to ask a lawyer if they might be, and just in case, there are probably lobbyists ensuring that the insurance companies demand a solution from a specific whitelist of brands. And those, in turn, are why the solutions stay expensive. Oh, by the way, the purpose of the patent system is to release the methods to the world, so feel free to start digging; I'm sure you can find one or two that are expired, unobfuscated, and applicable.. the US patent office alone has only 1994 patents filed on "concrete and collapsible".
While caloric intake is one possible way to force weight loss, it's not the only possibility. Restricting carbohydrate intake alone will reduce insulin production, preventing fat buildup and enabling fat burn. Short term, that leads to faster weight loss. Mid term, either method is about equally effective. Long term, caloric deficits can lead to true starvation. Excessive carbohydrates are a seriously contributing factor in obesity, diabetes, and more (the ketogenic diet was developed as an epilepsy treatment). Probably most relevant in this context, avoiding carbs is a lot easier to sustain as a rule than never eating your fill.
Thank you! It's such a relief to have it reconfirmed that I, and thousands of other enthusiasts and developers, simply don't exist. Takes all the pressure to succeed off...:P
The trick lies in the fact that the picture is a projection, not the scene. There do exist 3D displays, which are volumetric, but a lightfield display doesn't replicate the objects, only the light passing through the screen. This is just like a hologram (although digital lightfield processing is far from the fidelity of chemical holography). The more commonly advertised "3D" screens approximate the effect for two points that represent your eyes, which breaks down in several ways: The points may be misplaced, such as looking at the screen from anywhere but dead center at the right distance and with the estimated interpupilary distance (yeah, that's not happening, particularly with multiple viewers); this is common for TVs and such. For HMDs and VR, a growing issue is that the points are not points at all; your pupils have a shape, and dynamic optics used to focus (accomodate). That's what these displays are designed to address. A related issue in turn is that cinematographers are used to using blurring effects to suggest focus, which will conflict if you're not looking exactly where you were expected to.
Light field imaging really does operate in 4D; two dimensions of position and two dimensions of angle. Normal stereoscopic imagery means using two cameras, each of which takes 2D angular images (e.g. the pixels represent a direction from the camera), and having them placed separately; this gives you a single step of third dimension, which is intended to exactly match the offset between your eyes. It's only an estimation as eyes have more axis of adjustability, including vergence and accomodation, and the direction of your eyes does affect your interpupilary distance for the same reason a panoramic camera setup needs a depth offsetting gimbal; the front end optics are in front of the rotation axis. Common stereoscopic displays like TVs and cinema have this as one of the less inaccurate tradeoffs, however, as the mere fact they don't know where you are (and there are frequently multiple watchers) means they can't show your perspective (if they did, you would see a wider field if you sat closer). A lightfield camera like a Lytro uses a lens array to distinguish such places on the lens itself. From that data you could focus to render 2D images, but a true lightfield display (like this one from Standford, the microlens projection system from MIT, or the very similar HMD shown by Nvidia) leaves that task to your eye's normal accomodation. Some lightfield systems simply use multiple cameras in an array; a few are designed for 3D and thus only have a linear array. Due to the unsolved problem of video transfer of true 4D lightfields, this is the category most 3D panoramic content falls in, which restricts the user to panning only (no yaw, little tilt, no translation) to avoid serious distortion.
If you look at a stereoscopic image, and move your head a little, you see the scene shearing to make objects further away move the same direction; this effect is because the images shown to your eyes were made for a different perspective. An eye tracking stereoscopic display could avoid this (sadly, the New 3DS does not), and a true light field display would not need to; it already displays different perspectives in different directions. In principle you'd require a capture array the size of your screen, but display prototypes avoid that simply by using CG, and it's also less of a problem for VR than cinema. A common application has been lenticular 3D pictures, which frequently have 5 or more perspectives.
Actually, since RequestPolicy stopped working in my Iceweasel, I installed Policeman. It provides a neat UI for selecting precisely which sites can load what from where, including options like loading styles but not scripts. I believe NoScript is necessary to block firsthand scripts, however.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that frame rate is more important than resolution. It's that both need to be good enough; for you, 1080 is good enough a lot of the time. I tend to run 2560x1440 at about 100-120 fps. That 4K monitor could still have been a good choice since you could render at lower resolutions, if you used it for other work that did benefit (perhaps video, CAD, or many windows). Just not at all costs (such as too steep a downgrade in refresh rate).
Almost the right question. I suspect the positive effects have everything to do with having a routine that promotes breaks. Substituting soda would also be negative.
Except the open source part meant: 1) They could make the modifications, 2) they could share those modifications, 3) the maintainer (or anyone competent) could have vetted and merged the changes, 4) there was no need to make the changes.
The breakage in this case happened because they made the change carelessly and chose not to participate in the usual quality control. And it caused a major security flaw in the program they force on users specifically for security. I'll grant you the situation would be no better with non-free software, and the carelessness in security critical contexts is a bigger issue, but open source had relevance.
There's a complicated relationship between USB-C and anything (mostly using alternate modes). The most commonly supported video over type C is probably DisplayPort alternate mode, which is distinct from DisplayPort over Thunderbolt alternate mode, HDMI alternate mode, MHL alternate mode, DisplayLink (which is a brand of USB attached video controllers, with several incompatible versions), or a variety of other proprietary formats (such as Gemini PDA's HDMI adapter dongle). As for which of these your device supports, there's a chance you'll find a logo if it supports Thunderbolt 3 but otherwise you're basically left to try it blindly.
Is it okay if I blame the peripheral manufacturer for deliberately making the peripheral nigh impossible to use without their specific proprietary software? Because DisplayLink is one of many that do. They advertise it as a feature that their devices are hard to use.
Perhaps this is an artifact of the video compression algorithm ...
Bingo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_level The most common formats use a range of 16-235, not 0-255.
What this video shows is that a human would have had a hard time avoiding the collission if watching only through a video monitor showing this video feed. That isn't the case for either the supervisor or the control system.
This is the answer. YouTube Red is not a service at all, it is a taunt; "not available in your country". The YouTube app instructions literally tell us to use options that are not on offer and we have to search to find out it's for no reason.
"...MS to start putting ads and behavior tracking into Windows..." Did you somehow miss Windows 10 completely?
It doesn't help much if major venues host his story without addressing its veracity. For instance, this bit about paid priority for those who need it. The key words are "paid" and "need"; these are markets not currently being singled out for this particular extortion, because of the law he intends to repeal. Of course this is hugely unfair as the telecom companies aren't allowed to perform the same type of extortion the pharmacological ones can.
I've never seen Breaking Bad music video
I don't have a TV. I still happen to like both Scrapheap Challenge and Mythbusters, and there are some other shows that can be interesting or amusing, such as How It's Made or Glee (do wish they'd stop putting so much awful drama in). Interests vary, naturally.
Your very first claim is false: in Preferences - Advanced - Firefox updates, you can easily set it to ask or never check.
The menu bar can be accessed by hitting Alt, and it can be unhidden by going Hamburger - Customize - Show/Hide Toolbars - Menu Bar. While hiding it is arguable it provides more space for content. The weird thing is the amount of blank space left behind.
How many did you poll to conclude "most people"? I'd be surprised if it was a whole dozen... and the "none of my friends" part makes me wonder how many just won't broach the subject, if you fly off the handle like this at the mention of it.
One of my reasons to use Firefox is that it at supports ad blocking on Android.
No, it's not new, and this isn't poking around in defenses, simply because there was a complete absence of defenses. The programming terms for the missing class of checks are input validation and sanitation.
This was the equivalent of someone handing you an order form where you fill in both price and quantity, you filling in the wrong price and handing it back, then them reading your price and going with that, no comments. And after you instead of using the incorrectly priced service told them they should perhaps check against their catalog prices, they sent the police after you. Note that until the subject was brought up they had no clue of either how many or how severe these mismatches had been, nor was there any indication why they happened. The only confirmed case was also one where no service was used and thus no loss was involved.
To make your analogy more fitting, the other day a neighbour walked up to my door and called in "hello, did you forget to close the door?" because it was ajar. My visitor had indeed failed to pull it shut. Nobody was jostling my fourth floor bedroom window. The purpose of the door is to let people in; I had opened the door to let someone in; and I was alerted that perhaps it was open for more than I had planned.
The adage for this type of behaviour is shooting the messenger.
The reason you don't need to download a program to type on your PC is simply that it is bundled with the OS. Which is exactly the case with this keyboard app. The difference is that HTC apparently contracted some third party keyboard rather than retheming the AOSP default keyboard, when they decided they wanted to put their own look on it. This choice was probably to save costs as they wouldn't need to update the app themselves. They use a nonstandard one because people judge the value of the phone based on the default keyboard, among other things, rather than go looking for a keyboard they like and can install on whatever phone they get. SNAFU all around. When MS bundle a third party app in this manner, it's usually less critical (such as that horrendous phone game Windows 10 keeps advertising) or they are more thorough in pretending they made it themselves (DoubleSpace, xcopy, etc).
For the moment, it's pretty closely tied. But both OSVR and SteamVR do function on GNU/Linux, and if I recall correctly nvidia recently added the direct mode (after a few mishaps including a driver release that simply refused to let us access VR headsets it recognized. OpenHMD works on VR device drivers that are properly free software. There's lots of work to be done still.
Some notes on e.g. https://github.com/ValveSoftwa... and https://www.reddit.com/r/OSVR/...
The difference is merely in granularity; one is performed in the build time linker (aka static, ld), the other in the run time linker (aka dynamic loader, ld.so). The latter can be done in advance (prelinking), the former has to. The run time linker doesn't have information on all the intra-object links, so cannot operate at the level the build time linker does. That granularity might make a difference; it moves from up to about three (code, data, rodata) randomized pointers per program file to the same per object file (or possibly function, if the compiler splits them). The sort of exploit code this is supposed to mitigate doesn't need to hunt for all of those but typically a specific one, though, and the mitigation has been found to be fairly weak.
You'll want to take a look at Cray's Chapel programming language.
I merely commited the sin of RTFA; the exact sentence was "Such side effects caused 20 men to drop out of the study and were reported by many others," not external factors. They also put the word monogamous (which, if accurate, addresses your second point; bear in mind the women agreed to the study) where you placed heterosexual. I simply did a (somewhat hasty) reading of what they presented, where I considered what the stated claims look like if the tone is removed or flipped. By contrast your "debunking" directly contradicted the article with supposition.
There's certainly no reporting bias here - among 270 men in the trials, 11 simply didn't reach the chosen threshold of 1/15th normal sperm count in six months, 8 didn't recover within a year after stopping the treatment, 20 dropped out because of side effects while many more reported them (to the degree they stopped taking on new participants - back in 2011), 4 achieved pregnancies within a year while under the chosen threshold. All durations reported are in "up to" form, and the fertility of their partners was not indicated (around 10% have issues while trying, per womenshealth.gov). Only 66-69 of them (by somebody's rounding) stated they would refuse to ever attempt the method again, "so perhaps the side-effects weren't all that bad after all" according to Alan Pacey (whose connection to the study was left unclear). It's unclear if this was before or after they learned of how well other subjects did. The article also carefully describes the women only as "partners", despite heterosexuality being quite relevant to the study. The journalist went with "safe and effective", quoting "extremely effective" also from Allan Pacey, while not addressing the "need for ... reversible" part. I'm mildly curious where the "safe" came from.
The worst part? Compared to regularly used hormonal treatments for women, this probably is "safe".
You are, of course, free to invent your own way to make this material and to then release it to the world, open-source style
At which point the airports are, in turn, not able to use it because they're commercial use and the techniques you just (re-)invented are freshly patented (close enough to sue, anyway). Or at least it's expensive to ask a lawyer if they might be, and just in case, there are probably lobbyists ensuring that the insurance companies demand a solution from a specific whitelist of brands. And those, in turn, are why the solutions stay expensive. Oh, by the way, the purpose of the patent system is to release the methods to the world, so feel free to start digging; I'm sure you can find one or two that are expired, unobfuscated, and applicable.. the US patent office alone has only 1994 patents filed on "concrete and collapsible".
While caloric intake is one possible way to force weight loss, it's not the only possibility. Restricting carbohydrate intake alone will reduce insulin production, preventing fat buildup and enabling fat burn. Short term, that leads to faster weight loss. Mid term, either method is about equally effective. Long term, caloric deficits can lead to true starvation. Excessive carbohydrates are a seriously contributing factor in obesity, diabetes, and more (the ketogenic diet was developed as an epilepsy treatment). Probably most relevant in this context, avoiding carbs is a lot easier to sustain as a rule than never eating your fill.
That is a poor choice of phrasing, as it ends up incorrect. It was stated with all due respect, not respectfully.
Thank you! It's such a relief to have it reconfirmed that I, and thousands of other enthusiasts and developers, simply don't exist. Takes all the pressure to succeed off... :P
The trick lies in the fact that the picture is a projection, not the scene. There do exist 3D displays, which are volumetric, but a lightfield display doesn't replicate the objects, only the light passing through the screen. This is just like a hologram (although digital lightfield processing is far from the fidelity of chemical holography). The more commonly advertised "3D" screens approximate the effect for two points that represent your eyes, which breaks down in several ways: The points may be misplaced, such as looking at the screen from anywhere but dead center at the right distance and with the estimated interpupilary distance (yeah, that's not happening, particularly with multiple viewers); this is common for TVs and such. For HMDs and VR, a growing issue is that the points are not points at all; your pupils have a shape, and dynamic optics used to focus (accomodate). That's what these displays are designed to address. A related issue in turn is that cinematographers are used to using blurring effects to suggest focus, which will conflict if you're not looking exactly where you were expected to.
Light field imaging really does operate in 4D; two dimensions of position and two dimensions of angle. Normal stereoscopic imagery means using two cameras, each of which takes 2D angular images (e.g. the pixels represent a direction from the camera), and having them placed separately; this gives you a single step of third dimension, which is intended to exactly match the offset between your eyes. It's only an estimation as eyes have more axis of adjustability, including vergence and accomodation, and the direction of your eyes does affect your interpupilary distance for the same reason a panoramic camera setup needs a depth offsetting gimbal; the front end optics are in front of the rotation axis. Common stereoscopic displays like TVs and cinema have this as one of the less inaccurate tradeoffs, however, as the mere fact they don't know where you are (and there are frequently multiple watchers) means they can't show your perspective (if they did, you would see a wider field if you sat closer). A lightfield camera like a Lytro uses a lens array to distinguish such places on the lens itself. From that data you could focus to render 2D images, but a true lightfield display (like this one from Standford, the microlens projection system from MIT, or the very similar HMD shown by Nvidia) leaves that task to your eye's normal accomodation. Some lightfield systems simply use multiple cameras in an array; a few are designed for 3D and thus only have a linear array. Due to the unsolved problem of video transfer of true 4D lightfields, this is the category most 3D panoramic content falls in, which restricts the user to panning only (no yaw, little tilt, no translation) to avoid serious distortion.
If you look at a stereoscopic image, and move your head a little, you see the scene shearing to make objects further away move the same direction; this effect is because the images shown to your eyes were made for a different perspective. An eye tracking stereoscopic display could avoid this (sadly, the New 3DS does not), and a true light field display would not need to; it already displays different perspectives in different directions. In principle you'd require a capture array the size of your screen, but display prototypes avoid that simply by using CG, and it's also less of a problem for VR than cinema. A common application has been lenticular 3D pictures, which frequently have 5 or more perspectives.
Actually, since RequestPolicy stopped working in my Iceweasel, I installed Policeman. It provides a neat UI for selecting precisely which sites can load what from where, including options like loading styles but not scripts. I believe NoScript is necessary to block firsthand scripts, however.