There is no reason for using wavelengths outside the maximum sensitivity of each color receptor i the eye. Specialty screens may be different, but they're rare, especially in public.
No reason other than accurate color presentation. Sure, most LCD screens optimize for efficiency, which is why LCD has a bad rep among TV snobs. There are wide color gamut LCD monitors available, though, and they're pretty standard for anyone who works with color professionally.
No screen will show you the extremes of red or violet of human vision, but you can get pretty close without the extreme inefficiency of trying to show the entire spectrum, and that's enough to make colors appear lifelike. As OLED screens become the norm, however, the term "wide color gamut" may vanish, and just leave people wondering why those old screens looked so bad.
While I doubt the glasses work this way, most modern screens emit light only at 3 specific frequencies. I don't think every screen sticks that close to the same 3 frequencies, though (in particular, I think wide color gamut monitors are different).
OTOH, not all LCD screens are mounted with the same polarization, but I guess "most screens" is good enough.
It's a fair question, though, and the Progressive Social Media Complex will demand answers. If the application isn't actually secret (beyond NDA) I don't see why the companies wouldn't answer: they're going to find willing workers whatever it is. Honesty will benefit them far more than trying to hide stuff that will inevitably come out.
I mean, really, if you're building something with military application, wouldn't you want a team that thinks that sort of thing is cool, not a team that will stage a protest when they find out?
Not fraud, but idiocy (or perhaps youthful naivete). You can make a retro indy game for $50k, with 3 people in an extended "game jam", but a game with physics and modern graphics? Not reasonable, even at 180k.
What you could do, and what guys like this should do, is spend 6 months with a small team (usually dev, art, and sound) making a very limited game with a fun basic gameplay loop. Set aside your grand visions at first, and make something tiny but actually fun to play. Get that right, and people will pay more for content. (You can find a couple dozen GDC videos making this exact point.)
Heck, all the stereotypical Ubisoft game is these days is a fun basic gameplay loop, and endless "open world" filler. Get that basic gameplay right, and have great ideas for actual content and story? That's a breakout winner, but you have to give your funders something fun with the understanding that more funds will be needed for more content. In the moder gaming world of stupid cosmetics and loot box DLC, people will jump at the chance to fund actual content!
Put a different way, Amazon usually has left-over money that could have been paid out to shareholders, and they use all that money (and sometimes more) to grow the business. Contrast with MS Azure, where the business loses money before growth every year, but MS has 10s of billions to throw at undercutting the competition.
The toilet thing is sadly federal. It really pisses me off, because the total amount of water used inside households it trivial: there's no win to be had there in the first place. From useless shower head to annoying toilets, they're all "feelgood" measures that accomplish nothing and reduce basic hygiene.
Let people have their own values, don't try to force your values at gunpoint on others!
Yeah, that Tolkien guy totally couldn't write. *rolls eyes*
He didn't follow standard dramatic conventions, which is one reason it's so fun to return to Tolkien's work after reading too much modern fantasy drivel. It's not written like a comic book or Harry Potter story, that's for sure. The Hobbit was a kids book, and moves along well, but the rest of his stuff was written for grown-ups.
I still have hope we'll get a good Hobbit movie in my lifetime, one for kids about a middle-aged homebody turning out to not be quite the boring loser you thought he was.
Every Amazon business is profitable over COGS (almost) every year. They spend almost all those profits on growing the business. They're not generally selling below cost. The appearance that AWS is profitable vs the store is just a game to keep the stock price up: investors love AWS and are bored with retail, so AWS is "profitable".
That's the entire point of Amazon Basics IMO: cheap Chinese stuff that you at least know are sold by a real company that accepts returns, and that has some sort of quality bar above fraud. I'm a big fan of Amazon Basics A/V cables: they're cheap, but never too cheap.
I'm quite a few years out of date on Windows administration, but the last time I looked into Windows snapshots they were a lot more costly than they are under ZFS.
Windows software snapshots are fine for an on-server technology. Obviously, dedicated storage boxes do better than filesystem options.
Where Windows led the way was providing a solid framework for making useful snapshots of databases (or mail servers that act like databases). If you just take a snapshot, it's useless - you need to tell the DB you're doing it, let it tell you it's ready, then tell it you're done. And you want that to work seamlessly with any DB provider, and either the builtin snapshot or your fancy big-box storage system snapshot.
As you point out, you can do that an Oracle-specific way if you want, but it sure was nice to have an OS standard way that all the major vendors complied with. That let me develop my own cross-site DR product that would work with any common DB or storage system, with only a small team to dig into the details of how each big storage product had to be told to do its own cross-site replication (as there's no standard at all there, even within a company). Even without fancy hardware, Windows snapshots plus rsync did great for copying a consistent point in time from one site to another.
Bill Gates would sue these Linux faggots for libel, but they don't have any money. If they did, they'd have a real computer.
Dude, you fail it. The Slashdot Troll Style Guide clearly states that you can't talk about "Linux faggots" without making an Alan Cox / Anal Cox joke. Sheesh, at least make a minimal effort. Trolls these days just aren't as good as they were in my day!
There are two kinds of backup: backing up user files for user mistakes, and backing up the servers for server-level failure. Snapshots solve the former, well enough, but ransomware is really the latter, which I guess some people don't understand.
That only works for computers with internet access. Why would someone put an ATM on the internet?
Many, perhaps most, ATMs (all the shitty little ones no run by banks) still use dial up. They are vastly less secure! The security is a joke, because no one took the threat of an attacker discovering the ATM's phone number seriously. Remote "jackpotting" has been a real attack for almost a decade now as a result. The fact those ATMs mostly ran WinCE actually didn't matter, the security was so sloppy (built-in admin accounts with standard passwords, etc.) it didn't even rise to the level of old Windows security.
Banks tend to worry about the threat from technicians with the keys to the ATM more than random internet attackers, and rightly so given the statistics. Better to have it internet connected for firmware updates than send a technician to every ATM in the world. Sure, an ATM needs security just like the bank's web page needs security, but they're both going to be internet connected.
There's no storage technology that's any more exotic in the "Windows world" than anywhere else. This isn't he 20th century.
But how long does your snapshot last is the question? They're usually not set up to be kept for more than a few days, as that's all you need when a user calls and says "oops, I accidentally deleted/corrupted/messed up that file" - which is something like 85% of restores.
Also, ransomware will totally screw up your COW snaphot system unless you've seriously over-provisioned it, as it will change 100% of files, where usual daily file change may be 1%. Sometimes that's how you lean of ransomware spreading - suddenly your backup server is pinging you that it's getting full. At least then you're probably notified in time to make a difference.
It is also possible to have global warming from other causes. If we ever perfect fusion, we'd be adding heat from the planet rather then outside the planet. Not sure about fission, do we speed up the heat released or just concentrate it?
Geothermal warming, which is party nuclear, is additional heat that needs leave the Earth. It's something like 1/10000th of solar heating though. Any power generated through nuclear or fossil fuels becomes net new heat that needs to leave the Earth - it's just relatively small right now, bigger than geothermal but still far smaller than solar heating.
If we imagine a world with 10 billion people all consuming power at current US per-capita rates, then we're talking about something non-trivial - if it were all fusion it would be something like 10% of solar heat, IIRC, which would have a have a real effect on climate, but might be manageable without the elevated CO2 levels.
If you look farther out, the only solution is to move all heavy industry off-planet. That may seem very SciFi, but is probably less than 200 years away.
Global warming means that heat from outside the planet is being added to it faster than it is being emitted back into space.
Wind power does not change that in the slightest..
Convection is part of heat transport. It's bizarre that I have to explain this. There are three big components of the heat leaving the Earth: reflection, IR from the Earth's surface that escapes, and IR from the atmosphere.
Any heat accumulated by the atmosphere, though convection or radiative absorption, is eventually re-radiated. Unfortunately for growing CO2, ~half of it is radiated in the "down" direction.
Any heat above the troposphere is largely irrelevant to us here on Earth. To some extent as the stratosphere gets hotter, it reduces convection, which increases heating - that's one of those feedback mechanisms. There is also a non-trivial component of surface warming from IR absorption in the stratosphere an above.
Getting heat to the top of the troposphere is mostly the part of global warming that actually matters to us humans. We really don't care whether the ionosphere is 1000 degrees or 1300 degrees.
It's about heat loss near the surface. C'mon, Rear Admiral Pedantic. You know the ionosphere is 1000-1300 degrees, right? CO2 or anything else doesn't matter for shit once you get high enough, as the atmosphere gets very thin. All of "weather" is convection, transporting heat to an altitude where it stops mattering to us.
Adding a bit more CO2 also has very little direct effect on global warming. It's all about the feedback mechanisms. E.g., change the saturation point of the atmosphere just a little, and you change the Earth's albedo just a little, and that much bigger than the original effect. Melt the ice caps a bit, and you get a bit lower albedo, which helps melt a bit more ice. There are negative feedback loops too (which ultimately win and stabilize things, but on geological time scales).
But the paper seems to claim that too many turbines make it hotter regionally by reducing convection a bit. Regional warming is proportionally global warming, so there is an effect on global warming, which will be exaggerated by all the same feedback systems. Still small when compared to fossil fuels, but it is a reason to prefer solar.
Solar's the only thing that scales to future needs anyhow, unless we ever get fusion power, so we'll eventually end up there regardless.
1. Physical motion of the fluid ( Convection and any other source of velocity) 2. Conduction (hot areas heating cooler areas by being in physical contact) 3. Radiation a gas molecule emits a photon and it's absorbed by another molecule, in the case of the earth you can include the planet as a heat source)
If you think CO2 is enough to change that balance, then you better believe altering the patterns of motion and conduction are as well.
Off the top of my head, heat leaving the Earth (excluding primary reflection) is something like 83% radiative, 17% convective. Early models were more convective, but that was a long time ago.
The heat absorbed by CO2 is indeed tiny, which is why Climate Science is a science, not a high school experiment: there are feedback mechanisms which greatly exaggerate the direct effect of the CO2 (positive and negative, BTW, though the positive feedback dominates in the short term). Climate Science is about the study of those poorly-understood feedback mechanisms, not about thousands of scientists trying to understand how much IR CO2 absorbs.
It's modded up because that moron is trying to make a story about drones into some statement about women falsely accusing men of stuff. You should be modded down because your post about "accusations without trial" or "burden of proof" has zero to do with the government shooting down drones.
Welcome to Slashdot! Go ahead and make an account, it doesn't cost anything. I hope you find your time here enjoyable. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of "not reading TFA" and "every thread has its own topic" and "the mods are on crack, and not the good crack either".
You should try raising your expectations. You might get more out of life.
YouTube, though, goes beyond "no customer service for viewers" and delivers "no customer service for content creators". Way to raise the bar there, Google.
Slashdot Mirror
OLED screens tend to have a wider color gamut, though. Maybe that's just because OLED is still mostly high-end, but I hope it sticks.
Hey, it's not as big as the Military-Industrial Complex, but it's getting there.
There is no reason for using wavelengths outside the maximum sensitivity of each color receptor i the eye. Specialty screens may be different, but they're rare, especially in public.
No reason other than accurate color presentation. Sure, most LCD screens optimize for efficiency, which is why LCD has a bad rep among TV snobs. There are wide color gamut LCD monitors available, though, and they're pretty standard for anyone who works with color professionally.
No screen will show you the extremes of red or violet of human vision, but you can get pretty close without the extreme inefficiency of trying to show the entire spectrum, and that's enough to make colors appear lifelike. As OLED screens become the norm, however, the term "wide color gamut" may vanish, and just leave people wondering why those old screens looked so bad.
While I doubt the glasses work this way, most modern screens emit light only at 3 specific frequencies. I don't think every screen sticks that close to the same 3 frequencies, though (in particular, I think wide color gamut monitors are different).
OTOH, not all LCD screens are mounted with the same polarization, but I guess "most screens" is good enough.
It's a fair question, though, and the Progressive Social Media Complex will demand answers. If the application isn't actually secret (beyond NDA) I don't see why the companies wouldn't answer: they're going to find willing workers whatever it is. Honesty will benefit them far more than trying to hide stuff that will inevitably come out.
I mean, really, if you're building something with military application, wouldn't you want a team that thinks that sort of thing is cool, not a team that will stage a protest when they find out?
Not fraud, but idiocy (or perhaps youthful naivete). You can make a retro indy game for $50k, with 3 people in an extended "game jam", but a game with physics and modern graphics? Not reasonable, even at 180k.
What you could do, and what guys like this should do, is spend 6 months with a small team (usually dev, art, and sound) making a very limited game with a fun basic gameplay loop. Set aside your grand visions at first, and make something tiny but actually fun to play. Get that right, and people will pay more for content. (You can find a couple dozen GDC videos making this exact point.)
Heck, all the stereotypical Ubisoft game is these days is a fun basic gameplay loop, and endless "open world" filler. Get that basic gameplay right, and have great ideas for actual content and story? That's a breakout winner, but you have to give your funders something fun with the understanding that more funds will be needed for more content. In the moder gaming world of stupid cosmetics and loot box DLC, people will jump at the chance to fund actual content!
Good news! The water ration for showers was increased to 1.5g/min this year.
Put a different way, Amazon usually has left-over money that could have been paid out to shareholders, and they use all that money (and sometimes more) to grow the business. Contrast with MS Azure, where the business loses money before growth every year, but MS has 10s of billions to throw at undercutting the competition.
The toilet thing is sadly federal. It really pisses me off, because the total amount of water used inside households it trivial: there's no win to be had there in the first place. From useless shower head to annoying toilets, they're all "feelgood" measures that accomplish nothing and reduce basic hygiene.
Let people have their own values, don't try to force your values at gunpoint on others!
Yeah, that Tolkien guy totally couldn't write. *rolls eyes*
He didn't follow standard dramatic conventions, which is one reason it's so fun to return to Tolkien's work after reading too much modern fantasy drivel. It's not written like a comic book or Harry Potter story, that's for sure. The Hobbit was a kids book, and moves along well, but the rest of his stuff was written for grown-ups.
I still have hope we'll get a good Hobbit movie in my lifetime, one for kids about a middle-aged homebody turning out to not be quite the boring loser you thought he was.
Every Amazon business is profitable over COGS (almost) every year. They spend almost all those profits on growing the business. They're not generally selling below cost. The appearance that AWS is profitable vs the store is just a game to keep the stock price up: investors love AWS and are bored with retail, so AWS is "profitable".
That's the entire point of Amazon Basics IMO: cheap Chinese stuff that you at least know are sold by a real company that accepts returns, and that has some sort of quality bar above fraud. I'm a big fan of Amazon Basics A/V cables: they're cheap, but never too cheap.
I'm quite a few years out of date on Windows administration, but the last time I looked into Windows snapshots they were a lot more costly than they are under ZFS.
Windows software snapshots are fine for an on-server technology. Obviously, dedicated storage boxes do better than filesystem options.
Where Windows led the way was providing a solid framework for making useful snapshots of databases (or mail servers that act like databases). If you just take a snapshot, it's useless - you need to tell the DB you're doing it, let it tell you it's ready, then tell it you're done. And you want that to work seamlessly with any DB provider, and either the builtin snapshot or your fancy big-box storage system snapshot.
As you point out, you can do that an Oracle-specific way if you want, but it sure was nice to have an OS standard way that all the major vendors complied with. That let me develop my own cross-site DR product that would work with any common DB or storage system, with only a small team to dig into the details of how each big storage product had to be told to do its own cross-site replication (as there's no standard at all there, even within a company). Even without fancy hardware, Windows snapshots plus rsync did great for copying a consistent point in time from one site to another.
Bill Gates would sue these Linux faggots for libel, but they don't have any money. If they did, they'd have a real computer.
Dude, you fail it. The Slashdot Troll Style Guide clearly states that you can't talk about "Linux faggots" without making an Alan Cox / Anal Cox joke. Sheesh, at least make a minimal effort. Trolls these days just aren't as good as they were in my day!
As a former storage guy, let me encourage everyone to solve all problems by over-provisioning. It's only money.
There are two kinds of backup: backing up user files for user mistakes, and backing up the servers for server-level failure. Snapshots solve the former, well enough, but ransomware is really the latter, which I guess some people don't understand.
That only works for computers with internet access. Why would someone put an ATM on the internet?
Many, perhaps most, ATMs (all the shitty little ones no run by banks) still use dial up. They are vastly less secure! The security is a joke, because no one took the threat of an attacker discovering the ATM's phone number seriously. Remote "jackpotting" has been a real attack for almost a decade now as a result. The fact those ATMs mostly ran WinCE actually didn't matter, the security was so sloppy (built-in admin accounts with standard passwords, etc.) it didn't even rise to the level of old Windows security.
Banks tend to worry about the threat from technicians with the keys to the ATM more than random internet attackers, and rightly so given the statistics. Better to have it internet connected for firmware updates than send a technician to every ATM in the world. Sure, an ATM needs security just like the bank's web page needs security, but they're both going to be internet connected.
There's no storage technology that's any more exotic in the "Windows world" than anywhere else. This isn't he 20th century.
But how long does your snapshot last is the question? They're usually not set up to be kept for more than a few days, as that's all you need when a user calls and says "oops, I accidentally deleted/corrupted/messed up that file" - which is something like 85% of restores.
Also, ransomware will totally screw up your COW snaphot system unless you've seriously over-provisioned it, as it will change 100% of files, where usual daily file change may be 1%. Sometimes that's how you lean of ransomware spreading - suddenly your backup server is pinging you that it's getting full. At least then you're probably notified in time to make a difference.
It is also possible to have global warming from other causes. If we ever perfect fusion, we'd be adding heat from the planet rather then outside the planet.
Not sure about fission, do we speed up the heat released or just concentrate it?
Geothermal warming, which is party nuclear, is additional heat that needs leave the Earth. It's something like 1/10000th of solar heating though. Any power generated through nuclear or fossil fuels becomes net new heat that needs to leave the Earth - it's just relatively small right now, bigger than geothermal but still far smaller than solar heating.
If we imagine a world with 10 billion people all consuming power at current US per-capita rates, then we're talking about something non-trivial - if it were all fusion it would be something like 10% of solar heat, IIRC, which would have a have a real effect on climate, but might be manageable without the elevated CO2 levels.
If you look farther out, the only solution is to move all heavy industry off-planet. That may seem very SciFi, but is probably less than 200 years away.
Global warming means that heat from outside the planet is being added to it faster than it is being emitted back into space.
Wind power does not change that in the slightest..
Convection is part of heat transport. It's bizarre that I have to explain this. There are three big components of the heat leaving the Earth: reflection, IR from the Earth's surface that escapes, and IR from the atmosphere.
Any heat accumulated by the atmosphere, though convection or radiative absorption, is eventually re-radiated. Unfortunately for growing CO2, ~half of it is radiated in the "down" direction.
Any heat above the troposphere is largely irrelevant to us here on Earth. To some extent as the stratosphere gets hotter, it reduces convection, which increases heating - that's one of those feedback mechanisms. There is also a non-trivial component of surface warming from IR absorption in the stratosphere an above.
Getting heat to the top of the troposphere is mostly the part of global warming that actually matters to us humans. We really don't care whether the ionosphere is 1000 degrees or 1300 degrees.
It's about heat loss near the surface. C'mon, Rear Admiral Pedantic. You know the ionosphere is 1000-1300 degrees, right? CO2 or anything else doesn't matter for shit once you get high enough, as the atmosphere gets very thin. All of "weather" is convection, transporting heat to an altitude where it stops mattering to us.
Adding a bit more CO2 also has very little direct effect on global warming. It's all about the feedback mechanisms. E.g., change the saturation point of the atmosphere just a little, and you change the Earth's albedo just a little, and that much bigger than the original effect. Melt the ice caps a bit, and you get a bit lower albedo, which helps melt a bit more ice. There are negative feedback loops too (which ultimately win and stabilize things, but on geological time scales).
But the paper seems to claim that too many turbines make it hotter regionally by reducing convection a bit. Regional warming is proportionally global warming, so there is an effect on global warming, which will be exaggerated by all the same feedback systems. Still small when compared to fossil fuels, but it is a reason to prefer solar.
Solar's the only thing that scales to future needs anyhow, unless we ever get fusion power, so we'll eventually end up there regardless.
1. Physical motion of the fluid ( Convection and any other source of velocity)
2. Conduction (hot areas heating cooler areas by being in physical contact)
3. Radiation a gas molecule emits a photon and it's absorbed by another molecule, in the case of the earth you can include the planet as a heat source)
If you think CO2 is enough to change that balance, then you better believe altering the patterns of motion and conduction are as well.
Off the top of my head, heat leaving the Earth (excluding primary reflection) is something like 83% radiative, 17% convective. Early models were more convective, but that was a long time ago.
The heat absorbed by CO2 is indeed tiny, which is why Climate Science is a science, not a high school experiment: there are feedback mechanisms which greatly exaggerate the direct effect of the CO2 (positive and negative, BTW, though the positive feedback dominates in the short term). Climate Science is about the study of those poorly-understood feedback mechanisms, not about thousands of scientists trying to understand how much IR CO2 absorbs.
It's modded up because that moron is trying to make a story about drones into some statement about women falsely accusing men of stuff. You should be modded down because your post about "accusations without trial" or "burden of proof" has zero to do with the government shooting down drones.
Welcome to Slashdot! Go ahead and make an account, it doesn't cost anything. I hope you find your time here enjoyable. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of "not reading TFA" and "every thread has its own topic" and "the mods are on crack, and not the good crack either".
You should try raising your expectations. You might get more out of life.
YouTube, though, goes beyond "no customer service for viewers" and delivers "no customer service for content creators". Way to raise the bar there, Google.