Scientist ARE being objective. When or if evidence for a creator comes along, they'll gladly allow that be taught in schools. So far, ALL evidence supports the theory of evolution.
At work, for development and reverse engineering, we use widescreen LCDs rotated for portrait viewing. This is the bomb for viewing code and documents.
When it comes to coding off-site, I guess I never really expect coding on a laptop to be ideal or even easy. So, it doesn't bother me too much that they're mostly widescreen these days.
Haptic technology has uses ranging from remote medical breast checks... They shouldn't drop the price much from $50,000. Geeks everywhere will probably pay it to give Internet breast exams.
And while both Mac OS X and Windows have their issues, for the average person, it makes more sense to use those than Linux. I always hear statements like this, and they make me wonder: If not for the average person, who are distros like Ubuntu and Suse supposed to be made for?
The claim of TFA is not that their algorithm can take one blurry image and generate a less blurry image. The algorithm uses a series of pictures of the same subject (I assume something similar to bracketing exposures) and use the data from most of those images to sharpen edges in the image that already contains the most clearly defined edges.
Imagining how this works is pretty simple. Suppose the best image has an edge that appears to be on pixel columns x and x+1 and those pixels have luminance values a and b. Another image of the same subject may have the corresponding edge on columns x+1 and x+2 with lum vals c and d, and so forth... Then, it's a matter of combining the information from the pixels to produce a better edge. Fair results could probably be achieved with something like a weighted average, but I'm sure the algorithm the researchers in the article use is better.
Like the poster just before you mentioned, that would be the case only if the tiger could achieve 35 mph at a 55 degree angle. His speed is ground speed in this problem (0 degrees), so I don't think enough data was collected to determine how high he could actually jump. Horizontal speed can't be "losslessly" converted to horizontal and vertical speed in the real world.
We do have the answers. The answers is always, "Let's do whatever the hell most people think is right!" My point is that there is no sovereign judge of right and wrong. It's all subjective and it's all human. Without humans to create the concept of right and wrong, it wouldn't exist. We all DEFINE it because we invented it.
I didn't say science itself answers moral questions--just that religion and philosophy don't have a monopoly on valid opinions on these subjects. We have laws and lawmaking bodies to ensure that the opinion (regarding right and wrong) of the majority is represented and enforced.
Every human being has the capacity to make value judgments. A priests or Pope's opinion should carry no more weight than a janitor's or a scientist's.
And it always leads to the same thing: yet another "denomination" because no one has a leg to stand on in those types of arguments. They're circle jerks.
Even if it's just a bunch of shit that someone made up and that some people took too seriously, at least you have the analysis and the critiques and support for the writings that have come down. Religion isn't about questioning the writings and critiquing and deciding what to pass on. It's always been about subservience and blind faith in what an "inerrant" book says.
Religious people aren't so concerned with the same things we might be, like when a fetus starts to think.
For them, it's all about the concept of a soul. Catholics especially are worried about where this mushy cell cluster's soul will go if a priest hasn't yet had a chance to molest it.
Science can give us the information to make those decisions, but science can't make them for us. And religion can guide us in those decisions? Religions were created by people like us (educated people who could write). Why should their writings tell us what's right and wrong? Evolution has given us an inherent sense of right and wrong that we don't need ancient documents or Popes to expound on. If something seems wrong because it hurts people, maybe it is wrong. If there's some disagreement, let's all have a vote!
If you frequently disagree with your religion's stances, maybe you should consider abandoning it for an ideology that fits you better. Religion was created by humans and there are plenty to choose from, so why stick with one that doesn't serve you? Hell, you don't have to choose any at all.;)
A 'three-dimensional' image of an object can also be uploaded onto the phone, to look at the virtual object from different angles. Have we lost the ability to turn or walk around objects to see them from different angles in real life?
I guess I don't see how a packet, being a just collection of data, is supposed to send information to other packets. If a data packet were a physical object or even an executable this might be... interesting.
Engineering having the most difficult undergraduate and master's curriculums means the people who come away with engineering degrees are generally intelligent. I wouldn't correlate intelligence with radical religiosity; actually there's probably an inverse correlation there that's being out-factored by a stronger correlation elsewhere.
Most of us have the ability to explain a complex concept while driving. This point may be moot by now, but I am unable to explain something complex while driving. I can explain and drive--not breaking any traffic laws--but I will essentially drive off route, since I'm not consciously focusing on my destination and what turns I need to take to get there. This happens especially frequently when part of the route I'm taking is on a route I take frequently (e.g. to work or a store I frequent). I'll end up taking the normal turns I'm used to to get to work or whatever. My wife gets hugely frustrated by my problem and has essentially banned me from explaining my ideas to her while we're driving somewhere.
It is still piracy because the book itself and the right to print and distribute it are held by the publisher. The author sold those rights to the publisher in exchange for royalties. Technically, he is breaking the law as much as any other unauthorized distributor.
Slashdot Mirror
Scientist ARE being objective. When or if evidence for a creator comes along, they'll gladly allow that be taught in schools. So far, ALL evidence supports the theory of evolution.
At work, for development and reverse engineering, we use widescreen LCDs rotated for portrait viewing. This is the bomb for viewing code and documents. When it comes to coding off-site, I guess I never really expect coding on a laptop to be ideal or even easy. So, it doesn't bother me too much that they're mostly widescreen these days.
The average V you find "au naturale" may depend quite a lot on where you live.
The claim of TFA is not that their algorithm can take one blurry image and generate a less blurry image. The algorithm uses a series of pictures of the same subject (I assume something similar to bracketing exposures) and use the data from most of those images to sharpen edges in the image that already contains the most clearly defined edges. Imagining how this works is pretty simple. Suppose the best image has an edge that appears to be on pixel columns x and x+1 and those pixels have luminance values a and b. Another image of the same subject may have the corresponding edge on columns x+1 and x+2 with lum vals c and d, and so forth... Then, it's a matter of combining the information from the pixels to produce a better edge. Fair results could probably be achieved with something like a weighted average, but I'm sure the algorithm the researchers in the article use is better.
I am constantly forgetting my cell phone at home or at work. Will I then get to a red light and be stuck because the GPS says I'm not there?
Like the poster just before you mentioned, that would be the case only if the tiger could achieve 35 mph at a 55 degree angle. His speed is ground speed in this problem (0 degrees), so I don't think enough data was collected to determine how high he could actually jump. Horizontal speed can't be "losslessly" converted to horizontal and vertical speed in the real world.
We do have the answers. The answers is always, "Let's do whatever the hell most people think is right!" My point is that there is no sovereign judge of right and wrong. It's all subjective and it's all human. Without humans to create the concept of right and wrong, it wouldn't exist. We all DEFINE it because we invented it.
I didn't say science itself answers moral questions--just that religion and philosophy don't have a monopoly on valid opinions on these subjects. We have laws and lawmaking bodies to ensure that the opinion (regarding right and wrong) of the majority is represented and enforced. Every human being has the capacity to make value judgments. A priests or Pope's opinion should carry no more weight than a janitor's or a scientist's.
Give me one example of a complicated issue that can only be "pondered" by religious people and philosophers.
And it always leads to the same thing: yet another "denomination" because no one has a leg to stand on in those types of arguments. They're circle jerks.
Religious people aren't so concerned with the same things we might be, like when a fetus starts to think. For them, it's all about the concept of a soul. Catholics especially are worried about where this mushy cell cluster's soul will go if a priest hasn't yet had a chance to molest it.
If you frequently disagree with your religion's stances, maybe you should consider abandoning it for an ideology that fits you better. Religion was created by humans and there are plenty to choose from, so why stick with one that doesn't serve you? Hell, you don't have to choose any at all. ;)
I guess I don't see how a packet, being a just collection of data, is supposed to send information to other packets. If a data packet were a physical object or even an executable this might be... interesting.
I, for one, welcome our new previously-genetically-impossible overlords.
Engineering having the most difficult undergraduate and master's curriculums means the people who come away with engineering degrees are generally intelligent. I wouldn't correlate intelligence with radical religiosity; actually there's probably an inverse correlation there that's being out-factored by a stronger correlation elsewhere.
'til someone hacks into his legs. W-w-w-why am I walking off this cliiiiiiiiiffffff....
Can we expect a price drop soon?
It is still piracy because the book itself and the right to print and distribute it are held by the publisher. The author sold those rights to the publisher in exchange for royalties. Technically, he is breaking the law as much as any other unauthorized distributor.
Amen!