But teenage girls are not the biggest fans of pornography sites
This Victorian attitude that centers on the idea that women don't like sex just needs to die. Teenage humans are fans of pornography sites. Different strokes for different folks, of course. When a man and a woman both get drunk enough to lower their standards enough to actually get laid, this is not "rape culture", dammit, because men and women both are interested in sex. It's not "lie back and think of Britain" for fuck's sake.
Only from TFS did I learn where this image came from: having first seen it in an age where 16-bit (and even 8-bit) color palettes were the norm, I just assumed it was chosen for the purple feather, the details of feather and hatband and hair (which emphasize compression artifacts) and the human face, which we're very good at seeing distortions in. It just seemed like a challenging photo to compress in the days when jpg was too heavyweight for most PCs.
Still seems like a perfectly reasonable test image.
So, let me get this straight. Right-wing government employees are saying the bill is good, while left-wing government employees say it's bad? So, by my model, the bill must either reduce government spending, or reduce government power over people. Given the current GOP, the former is right out, and it's the latter. How am I doing so far?
I rather expect I've spent far more time researching this than you. But you've at least looked at the Vostok ice core data, right? You know it's normal to have a spike in temps every 100 k years, usually followed by a sharp decline and return to glaciation, but for some reason that didn't happen 10 k years ago, and we've had a very unusual stable period of climate? And that the mechanism for all this is still mysterious, with hypotheses still at the "maybe this would fit the data" stage?
Absent human activity, a return to glaciation would fit the historical data. But you knew that right? You're not just saying fashionable things, surely. Maybe you just prefer kilometers of ice covering most the land area over rising waters - I guess that's a personal preference
Climate science is still in it's infancy, the climate itself is a chaotic set of feedback cycles upon feedback cycles, and we've only started modeling the simplest stuff. Political posturing and demagogy is ancient and well-studied, however.
ut it is to almost everyone who has actually looked at it with a scientific eye.
So then, forcing the EPA to base that decision on publicly available science (actual peer reviewed papers and such), is fine then, right?
I don't think this bill is anything to do with global warming - the EPA has over the years pissed off many, many people by telling them they can't build on their own land "because reasons". It's one thing for the EPA to tell you the land you own is nearly worthless because "here's the established science that says your land use would hurt everyone else", most people are fine with that, but when they say "we're not even going to tell you why, we're basing it on secret stuff" is seriously not the kind of government America should have.
Hell, I'm not even sure we're screwed. I believe that the most probable future is the return of glaciation in the ongoing Quaternary Ice Age, and we'll be glad of all our CO2 to keep the glaciers out of Central Europe and the US for another century or two once it starts. One things for sure: the economic damage from a significant drop in temp (which we're 10k years overdue for) is worse than the equivalent rise in temp. For all that rising sea levels will suck, glaciers covering most of the temperate zones is worse.
That's not even the right question. The right question is: how much money will we save by reducing CO2 emissions by X, to at least 1 significant figure of accuracy? How much will it cost to make that reduction, to at least 1 significant figure of accuracy?
We don't know shit when it comes to that sort of prediction, and without that, policy is pure fashion statement and political posturing, not science-informed.
Right, it's the kind of immersion that matters. Now if we could only get movies where the characters weren't 2-dimensional. "The goggles, they do nothing!"
I don't need peripheral vision to feel part of a game world, as long as I can look around the world from a first-person or over-the-shoulder view (it would help a lot in racing games, since there your too busy with other controls to also look around with your hands). It's been ambient noise, clever soundtrack, and attention to detail (so that you can guess what the place smells like, and are happy not to much of the time) that provide immersion of any sort- I'm not just my eyes.
I really liked ST6 (I also like 3, but I seem to be the only one). And Shatner - he was great IMO as Denny Crane (maybe typecasting as well, but it worked better than Kirk I think).
"Immersion" is about script and character and (literary) world building, not technology. The most immersive games I've played were all old enough to have terrible graphics, but they had lots of interesting detail in the world to get lost in.
The top execs at the biggest companies are far from untouchable - they get fired by the board more often than you think (Balmer is a recent famous example; I think I've worked at 3 companies now where the board fired the CEO and most of his reports).
Wow, I would have showed up 1 minute late every day just for the entertainment value. But then, I never did pretend classes and grading were going to be important in the real world.
But what the in-falling observer sees as the spatial axis, the distant observer sees as the time axis. And special relativity means distance is a matter of perception, and all of this must vary smoothly. There's no way to make stacked cubes work with those requirements - it's bad enough to allow for smooth rotation of axes in Euclidean space, but with the continuously varying metric of GR it's right out.
The sibling post is on the right track. Informaton density requires mass density, and mass density distorts space, putting limits on what's possible. The whole idea of the Planck length comes from that in the first place.
Because of the way black hole formation works, if you have a fixed density in a small region of space, with no black hole, if you extend that density to a large enough region of space you get a black hole - exactly according to surface are being the limit.
It's just semantics, I think. If you want to lose weight, the kind of food you eat will determine your likely success in that endeavor, because it will affect both the amount of calories your body burns, and the difficulty of sticking to your diet. Saying "it's just in vs out" oversimplifies to the point of misleading.
HOV lanes usually increase traffic (less total people flow per minute) as they're underutilized for peak flow. They're quite politically popular for the Left however, and that's more important than infrastructure, apparently. Make them toll lanes instead, with the toll being "free" if you're not driving solo, and now the Left and Right can enjoy equally. You'll also get far more people along that highway per minute as the lane gets closer to ideal load.
Just about any dimensional space can be represented in fewer dimensions, or even 1 dimension
But that all misses the point here. The point of the holographic principle is not that one can imagine a 3D encoding onto a 2D surface, e.g. a holograph, but that the maximum possible information in a volume is not proportional to volume, but to surface area. That implies the fundamental mechanics of the universe can't be something like "voxels". We observe a universe which we can measure in 3 spatial dimension down to the Plank length, in principle, but that can't be what's really going on, at least if the holographic principle holds.
"Falsifiable" is a better word here. You don't need to be able to do controlled experiments (tests) in order to have a solid theory - an influx of new observations of the universe as we find it works just as well.
And the holographic principle is certainly falsifiable.
1) It imposes a limit on the amount of entropy in any given volume - find a system which can be in more than the allowed number of states, and isn't inside a black hole, and this theory is dead.
2) It sets a really high value on the entropy of black holes. Black holes become the dominant source of entropy in our universe. This has consequences in cosmology that are fundamental, if the only reason entropy is increasing in our universe is this assigning of entropy to black holes. There are certainly physicists playing with that idea, as it could be career-making, true or false.
3) It has deep implications for the evolution of black holes - how they evaporate. This will be a lot harder to prove (I don't think we'll validate Hawking radiation in my lifetime), but might be possible to falsify by finding a black hole that's clearly not allowed by theory.
Heck, there are implications for particle physics that are still being understood, and lots there is testable now with the LHC. The more and farther you reason from a premise like this, the more likely it is to matter to something easy to measure, or at least possible to measure.
The reason the discovery of the Higgs boson was such a big deal is that it confirmed a bunch of really abstract theory in quantum mechanics that is very, very far from anything we can measure, except at the end of this very long chain of reasoning there's this prediction of this new oddball particle (that there's no other reason to expect - it come from deep in the abstract math of QM, not from anything else we measured). So finding that particle confirms that whole crazy chain of logic. Something similar will eventually happen for the holographic principle.
In a trade-off between speed for the user, and development time, there's never one 100% true answer. Everything depends on what you're developing. But a bias towards the user is a good mindset to cultivate.
You seem to be arguing "it's doesn't matter what form the calories take" for weight loss, and many actually believe it's that simple. The "in" vs "out" is the final measure, sure, but the nature of the "in" matters a lot in practice.
Maybe I missed the whoosh, but there are definitely "VanillaJS jobs" out there - friend of mine recently got a nice job with Apple with about 10 years of "frameworks are for the weak" JS experience - built his whole career on vanilla JS.
My current car (a 12 Infiniti) has the steering headligts - great in the parking lot, really makes a different, not sure how much it matters at speed. It's currently a luxury feature, but with time and technology it won't be.
I could certainly see these new additions (at some absurd price) being sold on top-tier luxury cars, where you can already get IR vision assistance with pedestrian highlighting for a few grand - adding this to that tech package would make sense, After a few years it might come down to more common luxury cars, which gets production up to where it can start the road to normal cars.
Backup cameras used to be just as "who needs that" luxury, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
But teenage girls are not the biggest fans of pornography sites
This Victorian attitude that centers on the idea that women don't like sex just needs to die. Teenage humans are fans of pornography sites. Different strokes for different folks, of course. When a man and a woman both get drunk enough to lower their standards enough to actually get laid, this is not "rape culture", dammit, because men and women both are interested in sex. It's not "lie back and think of Britain" for fuck's sake.
Only from TFS did I learn where this image came from: having first seen it in an age where 16-bit (and even 8-bit) color palettes were the norm, I just assumed it was chosen for the purple feather, the details of feather and hatband and hair (which emphasize compression artifacts) and the human face, which we're very good at seeing distortions in. It just seemed like a challenging photo to compress in the days when jpg was too heavyweight for most PCs.
Still seems like a perfectly reasonable test image.
So, let me get this straight. Right-wing government employees are saying the bill is good, while left-wing government employees say it's bad? So, by my model, the bill must either reduce government spending, or reduce government power over people. Given the current GOP, the former is right out, and it's the latter. How am I doing so far?
I rather expect I've spent far more time researching this than you. But you've at least looked at the Vostok ice core data, right? You know it's normal to have a spike in temps every 100 k years, usually followed by a sharp decline and return to glaciation, but for some reason that didn't happen 10 k years ago, and we've had a very unusual stable period of climate? And that the mechanism for all this is still mysterious, with hypotheses still at the "maybe this would fit the data" stage?
Absent human activity, a return to glaciation would fit the historical data. But you knew that right? You're not just saying fashionable things, surely. Maybe you just prefer kilometers of ice covering most the land area over rising waters - I guess that's a personal preference
Climate science is still in it's infancy, the climate itself is a chaotic set of feedback cycles upon feedback cycles, and we've only started modeling the simplest stuff. Political posturing and demagogy is ancient and well-studied, however.
ut it is to almost everyone who has actually looked at it with a scientific eye.
So then, forcing the EPA to base that decision on publicly available science (actual peer reviewed papers and such), is fine then, right?
I don't think this bill is anything to do with global warming - the EPA has over the years pissed off many, many people by telling them they can't build on their own land "because reasons". It's one thing for the EPA to tell you the land you own is nearly worthless because "here's the established science that says your land use would hurt everyone else", most people are fine with that, but when they say "we're not even going to tell you why, we're basing it on secret stuff" is seriously not the kind of government America should have.
Hell, I'm not even sure we're screwed. I believe that the most probable future is the return of glaciation in the ongoing Quaternary Ice Age, and we'll be glad of all our CO2 to keep the glaciers out of Central Europe and the US for another century or two once it starts. One things for sure: the economic damage from a significant drop in temp (which we're 10k years overdue for) is worse than the equivalent rise in temp. For all that rising sea levels will suck, glaciers covering most of the temperate zones is worse.
That's not even the right question. The right question is: how much money will we save by reducing CO2 emissions by X, to at least 1 significant figure of accuracy? How much will it cost to make that reduction, to at least 1 significant figure of accuracy?
We don't know shit when it comes to that sort of prediction, and without that, policy is pure fashion statement and political posturing, not science-informed.
Or, you know, make a library with the stuff you actually need, as it will (likely) be a tiny slice of the whole of jQuery.
Right, it's the kind of immersion that matters. Now if we could only get movies where the characters weren't 2-dimensional. "The goggles, they do nothing!"
I don't need peripheral vision to feel part of a game world, as long as I can look around the world from a first-person or over-the-shoulder view (it would help a lot in racing games, since there your too busy with other controls to also look around with your hands). It's been ambient noise, clever soundtrack, and attention to detail (so that you can guess what the place smells like, and are happy not to much of the time) that provide immersion of any sort- I'm not just my eyes.
I really liked ST6 (I also like 3, but I seem to be the only one). And Shatner - he was great IMO as Denny Crane (maybe typecasting as well, but it worked better than Kirk I think).
"Immersion" is about script and character and (literary) world building, not technology. The most immersive games I've played were all old enough to have terrible graphics, but they had lots of interesting detail in the world to get lost in.
Oh, right, like Shatner was so much better as a director - that wonderful ST5.
because as of now nobody is capable to produce synthetic sapphire in large sheets. not to talk about reasonable price.
Supermarket scanners have often used synthetic sapphire for some time now (decades?).
The top execs at the biggest companies are far from untouchable - they get fired by the board more often than you think (Balmer is a recent famous example; I think I've worked at 3 companies now where the board fired the CEO and most of his reports).
Wow, I would have showed up 1 minute late every day just for the entertainment value. But then, I never did pretend classes and grading were going to be important in the real world.
But what the in-falling observer sees as the spatial axis, the distant observer sees as the time axis. And special relativity means distance is a matter of perception, and all of this must vary smoothly. There's no way to make stacked cubes work with those requirements - it's bad enough to allow for smooth rotation of axes in Euclidean space, but with the continuously varying metric of GR it's right out.
The sibling post is on the right track. Informaton density requires mass density, and mass density distorts space, putting limits on what's possible. The whole idea of the Planck length comes from that in the first place.
Because of the way black hole formation works, if you have a fixed density in a small region of space, with no black hole, if you extend that density to a large enough region of space you get a black hole - exactly according to surface are being the limit.
It's just semantics, I think. If you want to lose weight, the kind of food you eat will determine your likely success in that endeavor, because it will affect both the amount of calories your body burns, and the difficulty of sticking to your diet. Saying "it's just in vs out" oversimplifies to the point of misleading.
HOV lanes usually increase traffic (less total people flow per minute) as they're underutilized for peak flow. They're quite politically popular for the Left however, and that's more important than infrastructure, apparently. Make them toll lanes instead, with the toll being "free" if you're not driving solo, and now the Left and Right can enjoy equally. You'll also get far more people along that highway per minute as the lane gets closer to ideal load.
Just about any dimensional space can be represented in fewer dimensions, or even 1 dimension
But that all misses the point here. The point of the holographic principle is not that one can imagine a 3D encoding onto a 2D surface, e.g. a holograph, but that the maximum possible information in a volume is not proportional to volume, but to surface area. That implies the fundamental mechanics of the universe can't be something like "voxels". We observe a universe which we can measure in 3 spatial dimension down to the Plank length, in principle, but that can't be what's really going on, at least if the holographic principle holds.
The word "theory" implies that it is testable.
"Falsifiable" is a better word here. You don't need to be able to do controlled experiments (tests) in order to have a solid theory - an influx of new observations of the universe as we find it works just as well.
And the holographic principle is certainly falsifiable.
1) It imposes a limit on the amount of entropy in any given volume - find a system which can be in more than the allowed number of states, and isn't inside a black hole, and this theory is dead.
2) It sets a really high value on the entropy of black holes. Black holes become the dominant source of entropy in our universe. This has consequences in cosmology that are fundamental, if the only reason entropy is increasing in our universe is this assigning of entropy to black holes. There are certainly physicists playing with that idea, as it could be career-making, true or false.
3) It has deep implications for the evolution of black holes - how they evaporate. This will be a lot harder to prove (I don't think we'll validate Hawking radiation in my lifetime), but might be possible to falsify by finding a black hole that's clearly not allowed by theory.
Heck, there are implications for particle physics that are still being understood, and lots there is testable now with the LHC. The more and farther you reason from a premise like this, the more likely it is to matter to something easy to measure, or at least possible to measure.
The reason the discovery of the Higgs boson was such a big deal is that it confirmed a bunch of really abstract theory in quantum mechanics that is very, very far from anything we can measure, except at the end of this very long chain of reasoning there's this prediction of this new oddball particle (that there's no other reason to expect - it come from deep in the abstract math of QM, not from anything else we measured). So finding that particle confirms that whole crazy chain of logic. Something similar will eventually happen for the holographic principle.
In a trade-off between speed for the user, and development time, there's never one 100% true answer. Everything depends on what you're developing. But a bias towards the user is a good mindset to cultivate.
You seem to be arguing "it's doesn't matter what form the calories take" for weight loss, and many actually believe it's that simple. The "in" vs "out" is the final measure, sure, but the nature of the "in" matters a lot in practice.
Maybe I missed the whoosh, but there are definitely "VanillaJS jobs" out there - friend of mine recently got a nice job with Apple with about 10 years of "frameworks are for the weak" JS experience - built his whole career on vanilla JS.
My current car (a 12 Infiniti) has the steering headligts - great in the parking lot, really makes a different, not sure how much it matters at speed. It's currently a luxury feature, but with time and technology it won't be.
I could certainly see these new additions (at some absurd price) being sold on top-tier luxury cars, where you can already get IR vision assistance with pedestrian highlighting for a few grand - adding this to that tech package would make sense, After a few years it might come down to more common luxury cars, which gets production up to where it can start the road to normal cars.
Backup cameras used to be just as "who needs that" luxury, after all.
I hear great things about that new-fangled VanillaJS framework. Very lightweight and fast, and already more popular than jQuery.