I'm sure, for example, nanoparticles of plastics are much more hazardous than nanoparticles of burnt toast.
Given the long-known harmful effects of soot, and the newly-discovered harmful effects of carbon nanoparticles, that would seem a spectacularly unsafe assumption.
Everything I read on astrophysics and cosmology theorized that they were made in supernova explosions. And why would anyone link to networkworld.com for astrophysics news?
Although atmosphere does reduce the power, it's columnated light and in a vacuum anyway it would not lose any of its power.
That's a common misconception. There's no such thing as a perfectly non-diverging beam. Even with perfect optics, your beam divergence is limited by wavelength and beam diameter -- if you make your beam wider, you can make it diverge less, but then of course it's less useful for burning things.
You can certainly make a laser that will burn things at a great distance, but that's generally done by dumping kilowatts into a few square centimeters, or megawatts into a square meter or so. I think it's unlikely that you'll ever see a self-contained, pointer-sized laser that will damage steel at hundreds of feet -- you'd need kilowatts coming out of a handheld battery. *I* certainly wouldn't want to be holding the thing.
Now, that's interesting. Not enough to convince me completely -- I have my doubts about how long, or how cost-effectively, Samsung will support this upgrade path -- but it's certainly a point in their favor. Samsung was already high on my TV-brand list for other reasons, and this only makes their case stronger.
I'm in the market for a new TV. Since I'm very, very old, I'm upgrading from a 25-year-old CRT TV, and I don't think I care much about 4K. I'm prone to VR sickness, so I don't want 3D, either.
I realize that I probably can't count on my next TV lasting 25 years. But why on Earth would I want my media box built into my television, so that following the curve of technological advancement means pitching the entire huge TV into the waste stream? A media box has a single, well-defined interface to the TV -- one cord, a few if you want to get fancy -- and occupies not very many cubic inches of space. What's the advantage of integrating it into the TV, other than increasing the TV manufacturer's profit margin?
Someone upthread issued flamebait about MS Media Center, and I'm surprised the flamebait for Apple TV didn't appear even sooner. To me, buying a "Smart TV" is buying into another ecosystem just like them, only with a much tinier R&D budget, probably a less-polished UI, and much dimmer prospects for long-term support.
Congratulations. You've scored a one-line trifecta, demonstrating that you don't understand evolution, you don't understand progress, and you don't understand Engelbart's contributions.
Do you seriously believe that one person cannot have made a significant difference in the course of technological progress?
Dang, I don't know how i survived programming C on a CGA monitor back in the late 80's.
Yeah, yeah, and the folks enjoying their CGA monitors in the late 80's wondered how they survived coding on a dumb 24x80 terminal in the late 1970's, at which time they were wondering how they survived paper coding forms and keypunches in the late 1960's.
Guess what? You would've been more productive with a bigger (but especially taller) display back in the day. With a bigger monitor and a more modern IDE, you would've been more productive still.
I don't think you'll ever get any sort of light-emitting element, be it AMOLED or whatever, that's compatible with good battery life. It's going to have to be some sort of reflective LCD.
Well, actually, given another twenty years or so of progress on low-power, high-res cameras and ultra-low-power processors, I suppose you could save power by having a display that only emits light when someone's looking at it. But I think that would be just a bit too creepy for words.
2D side scroller? No, the whole attraction of Red Baron was that it was full 3D perspective, in a day when real-time 3D calculations were well beyond the reach of commodity hardware. (It ran on a 6502, capable of a blazing.5 MIPS, and used custom hardware for the 3D transformations.)
I mastered Battlezone, its sister game, but the one and only Red Baron game in our town spent most of its time out of order. The joystick mechanism just wasn't durable enough to stand up to drunken teens. (On Battlezone, you'd pull the cabinet over on top of you before the joysticks would break. Don't ask me how I know this.)
Assuming that a one-joystick "flight simulator" running on 1980 hardware would have anything in common with flying an actual fighter? Yeah, that was kind of silly.
People die and are horribly disfigured from house fires. I certainly hope you're keeping your child in a cave.
You sound just like the people from my parents' generation who refused to wear seat belts. They were convinced that they'd die in a fiery crash or drown in a sinking car, because the seat belt would prevent them from being "thrown to safety".
Well, first, you raise a possibly excellent point:
Is it dumb? I don't think I would go that far and make that accusation. I'd say it is a choice. Some of us have no desire to live for as long as we physically can. We see no point in it. Some of us would rather worry more about quality than quantity. You can drive your Honda Accord life (it's nice enough, it's reliable, it is safe, and it makes you happy) while there are others who want to have our BMW 740ils (we have style, live fast, cost a lot more, pick up the cute chicks, are fun, and it makes us happy). The idea that we should try to prolong our lives for as long as we can is foolish, selfish, and ignorant in my opinion. Quality over quantity, any day.
...even though it heavily begs the question of what constitutes "quality". But then you swing and cleanly miss:
I don't blame people for thinking that way though. They've been brainwashed into that line of thought for their entire lives. We're taught that we should live healthy and long lives. We're taught that we should eschew mind altering substances. We're told that we should OBEY THE LAW! We're taught that thinking for ourselves is wrong.
...because, of course, there's no sort of brainwashing to convince you that you need to get drunk or high in order to be happy. No societal messages indicating that it's the wild ones, the life-of-the-party types, who represent what you want to be. By the way, can you tell us a bit about how you independently derived (without any "brainwashing") the nature of "style", or what convinced you (without any influence from advertising) that your BMW is inherently superior, or (most especially) why these things are related at all to "having fun"?
Since we've finally moved past the old "you only use 10% of your brain" canard, it seems plausible that the neural paths reinforced by/for tasks like this would otherwise have been doing something else. I wonder if there are tasks where these gamers perform significantly worse than non-gamers? If there are, are the deficits consistent, or do different brains lose different things?
Actually, it's the people using smartphones who have trouble focusing. Symptoms include taking blurry photos, forgetting to turn the phone sideways for videos, walking in front of buses, and driving off cliffs.
But I suppose it's more likely Apple is going to just stick with 4 DIMM slots, given that memory per DIMM availability probably has at least doubled since Apple selected 8 DIMM slots for the last Mac Pro (2010? 2008?).
And, of course, the demand for RAM has remained perfectly static since then.
(Distance in one unit) cubed over (distance in a completely different unit)? Come on, do the simple unit analysis and just give fuel efficiency in square meters.
If that leaks, anyone with basic engineering knowledge could build one in their basement to power their entire neighborhood and turn cheap-shitty nickle into nice-expensive copper, and mister salesman makes no money.
"Cheap" nickel is about twice as expensive per pound as "expensive" copper. Gosh, I wonder whether the rest of your post is equally well-informed?
Having said that, I will happily trade you two pounds of either metal for the hundreds of megawatt-hours of energy Rossi's device claims to produce from one pound of nickel. (I will have some stipulations about how, and at what rate, that power is delivered; I'd prefer not to receive it all in the space of a few milliseconds in my immediate vicinity.)
Not that this is limited to NC by any means. God forbid anyone should step on the toes of health insurers, real-estate hucksters (sorry, my mistake, Realtors (tm) (c) (R)), taxi operators (jitney laws)...
I understand the concept of layered security, but I'm not convinced, especially not when things are bundled like this -- instead of serving as an independent layer, it seems like it'll just make a bigger attack surface.
Slashdot Mirror
The Y chromosome contains more than just SRY, and does quite a bit more.
SRSLY?
I'm sure, for example, nanoparticles of plastics are much more hazardous than nanoparticles of burnt toast.
Given the long-known harmful effects of soot, and the newly-discovered harmful effects of carbon nanoparticles, that would seem a spectacularly unsafe assumption.
Everything I read on astrophysics and cosmology theorized that they were made in supernova explosions. And why would anyone link to networkworld.com for astrophysics news?
Because using my tax dollars to buy them conflicts with my deeply-held faith in the phlogiston theory. Teach The Controversy!
Sounds like a good start.
Although atmosphere does reduce the power, it's columnated light and in a vacuum anyway it would not lose any of its power.
That's a common misconception. There's no such thing as a perfectly non-diverging beam. Even with perfect optics, your beam divergence is limited by wavelength and beam diameter -- if you make your beam wider, you can make it diverge less, but then of course it's less useful for burning things.
You can certainly make a laser that will burn things at a great distance, but that's generally done by dumping kilowatts into a few square centimeters, or megawatts into a square meter or so. I think it's unlikely that you'll ever see a self-contained, pointer-sized laser that will damage steel at hundreds of feet -- you'd need kilowatts coming out of a handheld battery. *I* certainly wouldn't want to be holding the thing.
Now, that's interesting. Not enough to convince me completely -- I have my doubts about how long, or how cost-effectively, Samsung will support this upgrade path -- but it's certainly a point in their favor. Samsung was already high on my TV-brand list for other reasons, and this only makes their case stronger.
Thanks for the link!
I'm in the market for a new TV. Since I'm very, very old, I'm upgrading from a 25-year-old CRT TV, and I don't think I care much about 4K. I'm prone to VR sickness, so I don't want 3D, either.
I realize that I probably can't count on my next TV lasting 25 years. But why on Earth would I want my media box built into my television, so that following the curve of technological advancement means pitching the entire huge TV into the waste stream? A media box has a single, well-defined interface to the TV -- one cord, a few if you want to get fancy -- and occupies not very many cubic inches of space. What's the advantage of integrating it into the TV, other than increasing the TV manufacturer's profit margin?
Someone upthread issued flamebait about MS Media Center, and I'm surprised the flamebait for Apple TV didn't appear even sooner. To me, buying a "Smart TV" is buying into another ecosystem just like them, only with a much tinier R&D budget, probably a less-polished UI, and much dimmer prospects for long-term support.
Congratulations. You've scored a one-line trifecta, demonstrating that you don't understand evolution, you don't understand progress, and you don't understand Engelbart's contributions.
Do you seriously believe that one person cannot have made a significant difference in the course of technological progress?
Dang, I don't know how i survived programming C on a CGA monitor back in the late 80's.
Yeah, yeah, and the folks enjoying their CGA monitors in the late 80's wondered how they survived coding on a dumb 24x80 terminal in the late 1970's, at which time they were wondering how they survived paper coding forms and keypunches in the late 1960's.
Guess what? You would've been more productive with a bigger (but especially taller) display back in the day. With a bigger monitor and a more modern IDE, you would've been more productive still.
Okay, apparently you can spell TROLL without LOL...
I don't think you'll ever get any sort of light-emitting element, be it AMOLED or whatever, that's compatible with good battery life. It's going to have to be some sort of reflective LCD.
Well, actually, given another twenty years or so of progress on low-power, high-res cameras and ultra-low-power processors, I suppose you could save power by having a display that only emits light when someone's looking at it. But I think that would be just a bit too creepy for words.
2D side scroller? No, the whole attraction of Red Baron was that it was full 3D perspective, in a day when real-time 3D calculations were well beyond the reach of commodity hardware. (It ran on a 6502, capable of a blazing .5 MIPS, and used custom hardware for the 3D transformations.)
I mastered Battlezone, its sister game, but the one and only Red Baron game in our town spent most of its time out of order. The joystick mechanism just wasn't durable enough to stand up to drunken teens. (On Battlezone, you'd pull the cabinet over on top of you before the joysticks would break. Don't ask me how I know this.)
Assuming that a one-joystick "flight simulator" running on 1980 hardware would have anything in common with flying an actual fighter? Yeah, that was kind of silly.
People die and are horribly disfigured from house fires. I certainly hope you're keeping your child in a cave.
You sound just like the people from my parents' generation who refused to wear seat belts. They were convinced that they'd die in a fiery crash or drown in a sinking car, because the seat belt would prevent them from being "thrown to safety".
Or am I just really, really old?
Well, first, you raise a possibly excellent point:
Is it dumb? I don't think I would go that far and make that accusation. I'd say it is a choice. Some of us have no desire to live for as long as we physically can. We see no point in it. Some of us would rather worry more about quality than quantity. You can drive your Honda Accord life (it's nice enough, it's reliable, it is safe, and it makes you happy) while there are others who want to have our BMW 740ils (we have style, live fast, cost a lot more, pick up the cute chicks, are fun, and it makes us happy). The idea that we should try to prolong our lives for as long as we can is foolish, selfish, and ignorant in my opinion. Quality over quantity, any day.
...even though it heavily begs the question of what constitutes "quality". But then you swing and cleanly miss:
I don't blame people for thinking that way though. They've been brainwashed into that line of thought for their entire lives. We're taught that we should live healthy and long lives. We're taught that we should eschew mind altering substances. We're told that we should OBEY THE LAW! We're taught that thinking for ourselves is wrong.
...because, of course, there's no sort of brainwashing to convince you that you need to get drunk or high in order to be happy. No societal messages indicating that it's the wild ones, the life-of-the-party types, who represent what you want to be. By the way, can you tell us a bit about how you independently derived (without any "brainwashing") the nature of "style", or what convinced you (without any influence from advertising) that your BMW is inherently superior, or (most especially) why these things are related at all to "having fun"?
Since we've finally moved past the old "you only use 10% of your brain" canard, it seems plausible that the neural paths reinforced by/for tasks like this would otherwise have been doing something else. I wonder if there are tasks where these gamers perform significantly worse than non-gamers? If there are, are the deficits consistent, or do different brains lose different things?
Phones have terrible focusing and poor lenses.
Actually, it's the people using smartphones who have trouble focusing. Symptoms include taking blurry photos, forgetting to turn the phone sideways for videos, walking in front of buses, and driving off cliffs.
But I suppose it's more likely Apple is going to just stick with 4 DIMM slots, given that memory per DIMM availability probably has at least doubled since Apple selected 8 DIMM slots for the last Mac Pro (2010? 2008?).
And, of course, the demand for RAM has remained perfectly static since then.
But when will I be able to buy a laptop with more than 768 lines for under 1000â?
Five to ten years ago. Isn't "progress" great?
(Distance in one unit) cubed over (distance in a completely different unit)? Come on, do the simple unit analysis and just give fuel efficiency in square meters.
If that leaks, anyone with basic engineering knowledge could build one in their basement to power their entire neighborhood and turn cheap-shitty nickle into nice-expensive copper, and mister salesman makes no money.
"Cheap" nickel is about twice as expensive per pound as "expensive" copper. Gosh, I wonder whether the rest of your post is equally well-informed?
Having said that, I will happily trade you two pounds of either metal for the hundreds of megawatt-hours of energy Rossi's device claims to produce from one pound of nickel. (I will have some stipulations about how, and at what rate, that power is delivered; I'd prefer not to receive it all in the space of a few milliseconds in my immediate vicinity.)
How many hours of video per minute are people watching?
...especially ones who make lots of campaign contributions. For example, the state tried unsuccessfully to require anyone selling on eBay to obtain an auctioneer's license.
Not that this is limited to NC by any means. God forbid anyone should step on the toes of health insurers, real-estate hucksters (sorry, my mistake, Realtors (tm) (c) (R)), taxi operators (jitney laws)...
Let's just pile on more software.
I understand the concept of layered security, but I'm not convinced, especially not when things are bundled like this -- instead of serving as an independent layer, it seems like it'll just make a bigger attack surface.