...
The thought of diverting a wave is an interesting concept but the unintended consequences would be massive....
Well, it sounds like the only 'diversion' going on is within the constructed system. The wave isn't so much diverted as made to ignore one spot. It'll still be going the same direction when it comes out the other side.
I can definitely see why many people are skeptical about this. As a previous poster mentioned, after enough lying/propaganda, it gets hard to simply take their word for it. I myself have to seriously wonder.
However, I am inclined to believe them, this time, at least. Achieving a spacewalk shouldn't be that hard for a sufficiently modern, industrialized society. And if they really have, then YES! Let's celebrate! Not just for their own success, but for the sense of competition that (hopefully) our scientists and (especially) politicians will feel to actually push forward again in this area.
The only one I can think of off the top of my head is azureus (now zune), which is not exactly known for it's small resource footprint. In the closed source freeware realm, jalbum is available and quite nice to use.
You mean, aside from major IDEs?
NetBeans, Eclipse, and JEdit to name a few.
Also, there are a considerable number of simulation libraries for various fields written in Java. I use Repast quite often, and for a while was using a particle physics system (the name of which escapes me at the moment), both of which are written in Java.
...
bloated in memory usage and CPU usage in comparison to cleaner C# or C++...
While I won't entirely deny that charge, I will say that Java's memory requirements have diminished (slightly) with improvements to the JVM. But more important than that, is the fact that most reasonably new desktop systems have 2-3 gigabytes worth of memory, and several hundred gigabytes of hd space. The extra memory overhead simply isn't a very convincing reason to avoid Java any longer.
Now, you can say it's unfair that they bundled their own apps with Windows, but that makes them no different that any other OS (including IBM, Apple, and pretty much every Linux distro).
I have to disagree, at least partially, with that statement. I've got no major problem with most bundling of software, it's when I want to get rid of the bundled crap that the differences between windows and linux become apparent. Ever tried to get rid of MS Messenger? qttask.exe?
How about getting rid of, say, vlc in linux?
I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I am well aware that it would be impossible to see data that wasn't originally in the picture, I just thought it would be an interesting test of the system to see how it would respond to recursion like that.
This makes me wonder if it would be possible to convert the image to 3d, make a rendering, then convert the rendering again, from a different angle. If repeated, you could theoretically look 'behind' objects, to places that weren't visible in the original image. I assume you would just get black, but it would be interesting to try.
Slashdot Mirror
... The thought of diverting a wave is an interesting concept but the unintended consequences would be massive. ...
Well, it sounds like the only 'diversion' going on is within the constructed system. The wave isn't so much diverted as made to ignore one spot. It'll still be going the same direction when it comes out the other side.
I can definitely see why many people are skeptical about this. As a previous poster mentioned, after enough lying/propaganda, it gets hard to simply take their word for it. I myself have to seriously wonder. However, I am inclined to believe them, this time, at least. Achieving a spacewalk shouldn't be that hard for a sufficiently modern, industrialized society. And if they really have, then YES! Let's celebrate! Not just for their own success, but for the sense of competition that (hopefully) our scientists and (especially) politicians will feel to actually push forward again in this area.
The only one I can think of off the top of my head is azureus (now zune), which is not exactly known for it's small resource footprint. In the closed source freeware realm, jalbum is available and quite nice to use.
You mean, aside from major IDEs? NetBeans, Eclipse, and JEdit to name a few. Also, there are a considerable number of simulation libraries for various fields written in Java. I use Repast quite often, and for a while was using a particle physics system (the name of which escapes me at the moment), both of which are written in Java. ...
bloated in memory usage and CPU usage in comparison to cleaner C# or C++ ...
While I won't entirely deny that charge, I will say that Java's memory requirements have diminished (slightly) with improvements to the JVM. But more important than that, is the fact that most reasonably new desktop systems have 2-3 gigabytes worth of memory, and several hundred gigabytes of hd space. The extra memory overhead simply isn't a very convincing reason to avoid Java any longer.Now, you can say it's unfair that they bundled their own apps with Windows, but that makes them no different that any other OS (including IBM, Apple, and pretty much every Linux distro).
I have to disagree, at least partially, with that statement. I've got no major problem with most bundling of software, it's when I want to get rid of the bundled crap that the differences between windows and linux become apparent. Ever tried to get rid of MS Messenger? qttask.exe? How about getting rid of, say, vlc in linux?'apt get remove vlc'
I rest my case.Oh, pssh. I've been reading almost 10 years, and look at me. Though it is fun to watch those 4 digit lurkers pop up once in a blue moon.
I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I am well aware that it would be impossible to see data that wasn't originally in the picture, I just thought it would be an interesting test of the system to see how it would respond to recursion like that.
This makes me wonder if it would be possible to convert the image to 3d, make a rendering, then convert the rendering again, from a different angle. If repeated, you could theoretically look 'behind' objects, to places that weren't visible in the original image. I assume you would just get black, but it would be interesting to try.