I have no idea why you were modded troll. Don't let it bother you too much... Well might be cool if you manage a +5 Troll:).
Anyway, I'm not the first to interpret it that way. I got a few of the ideas from someone else on Slashdot.
But it could be the Wachowski actually thought of stuff like that, and intentionally don't "nail everything down". As you can see the 3 movies don't really conflict with my interpretation (which isn't that daft in my biased opinion). And I'm sure other interpretations might work reasonably well too.
So on the surface the matrix movies might seem stupid, but they might not actually be that stupid...;).
Quote BBC article: Employed at first as a gardener, Mr Naki worked his way up to become even more nimble-fingered on the operating table than Professor Barnard[1] himself.His work helped the first heart transplant become a reality and for years after that he passed on those skills to thousands of young surgeons.
But a decade later, with Barnard's help, his contribution gained international recognition. "Hamilton Naki had better technical skills than I did," Barnard said. "He was a better craftsman than me, especially when it came to stitching, and had very good hands in the theatre."
Many of those surgeons who learnt from Hamilton would go on to become professors and top surgeons all over the world. He was often credited in their academic papers. Hamilton was not intimidated by anyone. Dr Brian (Benzy) Cohen who now runs the national fertility centre in Texas, was performing an intricate operation on a pig's main vein. As he was completing the procedure he was about to put in another stitch. Hamilton - who had done the operation many times - said: "Benzy, that's enough. Tie it off now." Believing that an extra suture would stop any bleeding, Cohen proceeded and the operation was a failure. The next time, Cohen recalls: "When Hamilton said, 'Benzy tie it off' my immediate reply was, "Yes Hamilton" and I tied it off. I learnt immediately that here was a man who understood vascular surgical technique better than anyone else."
[1] Christiaan Neethling Barnard (November 8, 1922 - September 2, 2001) was a South African cardiac surgeon who performed the world's first successful human-to-human heart transplant.
No it's about putting zillions of connections on the same wire, so that when you cut the wire with your backhoe, suddenly very many CTOs realize that the 3 different ISPs providing them redundant links are redundant in the wrong way...:)
So it just means that "real world" is actually still a "matrix".
The idea that humans are batteries is just what Morpheus claimed. It may be true in the inner Matrix world, but may not be for the outer matrix worlds. Remember even in the first movie the question was asked: "What if when you woke up, you didn't know the difference between the dream world, and the real world?"
My interpretation is the Oracle is trying to upgrade herself- she believes humans have something the machines don't.
Think of the whole thing as a "hybrid/breeding program".
Neo is likely at least partly a machine (and a special one). The Oracle gives Neo a cookie to add features/upgrades at critical moments.
After each world iteration, Neo has a chance of becoming more human but crucially retaining the abilities of machines.
Smith goes about merging with all the humans and other machines, including the Oracle (who still somehow retains enough of herself to prompt Neo), and Neo merges with Smith.
If things go fine, the Oracle gets her upgrade...
As the Architect said, the Oracle is playing a dangerous game.
But life is dangerous:).
Re:So, o/s business is pretty much past tense now
on
Recomputing the Sky
·
· Score: 1
quote: "The cathode is the negative electrode. Any gas discharge lamp has a pair of electrodes, acting as cathode and anode (the positive electrode). Both electrodes alternate between acting as an anode and a cathode when these devices run with alternating current."
Hey, you're the one who said: "I disagree. At 60Hz each eye (120Hz total), there is no perceivable flicker at all on active glasses" "Barring hardware problems you will see no flicker. Hate to break it to you but you do not have super vision." "30Hz is the scientifically accepted threshold."
I was just pointing out that that you're wrong. Humans with normal human vision can see the flicker at such low refresh rates. No super vision is required.
Even now you say you see flicker from a 60Hz CRT. 3D shutter goggles will be similar to CRTs since they cycle between blocked/black and visible at 60Hz per eye. In comparison LCD displays may not actually go to black (the LCD backlights may run at higher Hz than 60).
And where's the source for the claim: "30Hz is the scientifically accepted threshold."?
Whether you or I find such low refresh rates acceptable or not is besides the point.
If you have difficulty realizing when you're wrong and spouting bullshit claims, it's your loss dude.
They're not unwatchable. But 24fps is really crappy. Especially when the scene changes a lot, either everything is blurred and smeared (if they motion-blur stuff), or you see stuff "rippling" down.
I'd like to see evidence of your "scientifically accepted threshold".
Try this: move your hand quickly in front of a 60Hz light source. Move your hand quickly in sunlight. Do you see a difference in the movement images? I do and I bet many others do too. Your hand just doesn't look like it's moving as smoothly when lit at 60Hz. There are gaps in the images.
In contrast, if the light source was "strobing" at a much higher rate, say 20000Hz, you probably would not see a significant difference when compared with sunlight. The image of your moving hand would be updating at 20000 times a second. The gaps would be imperceptible.
Therefore 60 frames per second is far from a sufficient refresh rate for reproducing perfectly smooth and steady motion video for human eyes. I suspect you can even see the difference for 120Hz (normal fluorescent lighting powered by 60Hz AC lights at this rate).
Eyes don't work like digital cameras. Whether you can easily detect 60Hz also depends on the contrast between the frames and the stuff in the frames, and whether it goes to black or not. LCDs tend to smear stuff more than CRTs, and CRTs tend to go to black between refreshes by the electron beam. Many people can easily tell the difference between a CRT monitor running at 85Hz and one running at 70Hz. One is just a lot more "solid". 60Hz flickers far more perceptibly.
Lastly, many only have to look off to the side of the screen and their peripheral vision will tell them if the image flickers. Human peripheral vision is usually more sensitive to quick motion than the central vision.
If I were IBM, I'd donate some money to keep Mozilla going. The more choices there are the more likely some CxO is going to just pay IBM to not have to think about them:).
"the last time my cc details were swiped I got credit on the credit card, but still had to pay the accrued (fraudulent) charges from my own bank account."
What's your exposure limit where you are? In the US it's supposed to be USD50 under certain conditions and zero under other conditions, assuming you report it within 2 days of _learning_ of the loss or theft of access.
If you're in the USA, you got screwed by your bank, and perhaps you should sue them for the money and damages - it's the "American Way" right?;).
Some interpret section 909 as the customer is only liable if the card is stolen or lost, and not liable at all otherwise:
909. Consumer liability for unauthorized transfers
(a) A consumer shall be liable for any unauthorized electronic fund transfer involving the account of such consumer only if the card or other means of access utilized for such transfer was an accepted card or other means of access and if the issuer of such card, code, or other means of access has provided a means whereby the user of such card, code, or other means of access can be identified as the person authorized to use it, such as by signature, photograph, or fingerprint or by electronic or mechanical confirmation. In no event, however, shall a consumer's liability for an unauthorized transfer exceed the lesser of--
(1) $50; or
(2) the amount of money or value of property or services obtained in such unauthorized electronic fund transfer prior to the time the financial institution is notified of, or otherwise becomes aware of, circumstances which lead to the reasonable belief that an unauthorized electronic fund transfer involving the consumer's account has been or may be effected. Notice under this paragraph is sufficient when such steps have been taken as may be reasonably required in the ordinary course of business to provide the financial institution with the pertinent information, whether or not any particular officer, employee, or agent of the financial institution does in fact receive such information.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, reimbursement need not be made to the consumer for losses the financial institution establishes would not have occurred but for the failure of the consumer to report within sixty days of transmittal of the statement (or in extenuating circumstances such as extended travel or hospitalization, within a reasonable time under the circumstances) any unauthorized electronic fund transfer or account error which appears on the periodic statement provided to the consumer under section 906. In addition, reimbursement need not be made to the consumer for losses which the financial institution establishes would not have occurred but for the failure of the consumer to report any loss or theft of a card or other means of access within two business days after the consumer learns of the loss or theft (or in extenuating circumstances such as extended travel or hospitalization, within a longer period which is reasonable under the circumstances), but the consumer's liability under this subsection in any such case may not exceed a total of $500, or the amount of unauthorized electronic fund transfers which occur following the close of two business days (or such longer period) after the consumer learns of the loss or theft but prior to notice to the financial institution under this subsection, whichever is less.
(b) In any action which involves a consumer's liability for an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, the burden of proof is upon the financial institution to show that the electronic fund transfer was authorized or, if the electronic fund transfer was unauthorized, then the burden of proof is upon the financial institution to establish that the conditions of liability set forth in subsection (a) have been met, and, if the transfer was initiated after the effective date of section 9
> I'm really thinking the cash idea is the way to go from now on.:-(
Why? If I get mugged at (or on the way to) the gas station I lose my cash. If my card gets skimmed, I do not lose my money. If many people's cards get skimmed from the same place, I may not even have to dispute the transaction - the card company will just cancel the card, invalidate the transactions and issue me a new card.
From the article: When a card is compromised, however, the card issuer has to reimburse the customer. If incidents of skimming at unattended terminals such as pay-at-the-pump continue to rise, gaps in security may be looked at with more scrutiny.
Cash may be more private, but cash is definitely not safer than credit cards.
> Gold is certainly not perfect, but it is measurably better than fiat currencies.
I disagree. Using gold as a currency is a stupid idea, there isn't that much gold around so it will make gold too expensive to be used as a raw material. Go work out how much available gold there is per person. Work out how much your salary will have to be in grams of gold. Gold is too useful a raw material for lots of stuff to be wasted as a currency.
Widespread use of the US Dollar is advantageous to the USA, since if many countries in the world use the US dollar to buy and sell stuff (oil, grain, software, hardware etc), it means those countries will have to hold large net positive amounts of the US dollar.
Whenever the USA creates more US dollars, anyone (this includes countries) holding net positive amounts of the US dollar effectively gets taxed.
Now the "proper USA deal" should be the US Gov (Mugabe) creates more US dollars, and hands some over to its citizens (cronies) whether directly or indirectly. So the US Gov gets richer, the US citizens are OK, and the rest of the world (in "US Dollar Zimbabwe") gets poorer.
The problem for the US is if more and more switch from the US dollar to other stuff like gold or the Euro.
"Please wait, checking permissions and calculating number of objects to be copied..." (slight pause after this) Copy progress bar appears on mobile device (with cancel option). Time passes... Done...
Slashdot Mirror
They can mod me troll, but it's the truth as I see it. At least one person is using that method to get hits:
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/06/06/10/1529257.shtml
So with this story they have Facebook, the young girl, rape and so on, but they didn't manage to exploit the Apple angle much :).
I have no idea why you were modded troll. Don't let it bother you too much... Well might be cool if you manage a +5 Troll :).
;).
Anyway, I'm not the first to interpret it that way. I got a few of the ideas from someone else on Slashdot.
But it could be the Wachowski actually thought of stuff like that, and intentionally don't "nail everything down". As you can see the 3 movies don't really conflict with my interpretation (which isn't that daft in my biased opinion). And I'm sure other interpretations might work reasonably well too.
So on the surface the matrix movies might seem stupid, but they might not actually be that stupid...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3011105.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Naki
Quote BBC article: Employed at first as a gardener, Mr Naki worked his way up to become even more nimble-fingered on the operating table than Professor Barnard[1] himself.His work helped the first heart transplant become a reality and for years after that he passed on those skills to thousands of young surgeons.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/31/black-surgeon-first-heart-transplant
But a decade later, with Barnard's help, his contribution gained international recognition. "Hamilton Naki had better technical skills than I did," Barnard said. "He was a better craftsman than me, especially when it came to stitching, and had very good hands in the theatre."
See also:
http://www.developmentpractice.org.za/learning-materials/category/29-capacity-building?download=114%3Abuilding-capacity
Many of those surgeons who learnt from Hamilton would go on to become professors and top surgeons
all over the world. He was often credited in their academic papers. Hamilton was not intimidated by
anyone. Dr Brian (Benzy) Cohen who now runs the national fertility centre in Texas, was performing an
intricate operation on a pig's main vein. As he was completing the procedure he was about to put in
another stitch. Hamilton - who had done the operation many times - said: "Benzy, that's enough. Tie it
off now." Believing that an extra suture would stop any bleeding, Cohen proceeded and the operation
was a failure. The next time, Cohen recalls: "When Hamilton said, 'Benzy tie it off' my immediate reply
was, "Yes Hamilton" and I tied it off. I learnt immediately that here was a man who understood vascular
surgical technique better than anyone else."
[1] Christiaan Neethling Barnard (November 8, 1922 - September 2, 2001) was a South African cardiac surgeon who performed the world's first successful human-to-human heart transplant.
No it's about putting zillions of connections on the same wire, so that when you cut the wire with your backhoe, suddenly very many CTOs realize that the 3 different ISPs providing them redundant links are redundant in the wrong way... :)
Their science and technology section is far better than the nonexistent science and tech sections in most local newspapers.
As for the claims of "far right" slant, I find those to be rather strange claims.
Another popular trick is to troll Apple fans.
There's mention of an iPod. But I don't see anything for the Apple fans to bite...
So it just means that "real world" is actually still a "matrix".
:).
The idea that humans are batteries is just what Morpheus claimed. It may be true in the inner Matrix world, but may not be for the outer matrix worlds. Remember even in the first movie the question was asked: "What if when you woke up, you didn't know the difference between the dream world, and the real world?"
My interpretation is the Oracle is trying to upgrade herself- she believes humans have something the machines don't.
Think of the whole thing as a "hybrid/breeding program".
Neo is likely at least partly a machine (and a special one). The Oracle gives Neo a cookie to add features/upgrades at critical moments.
After each world iteration, Neo has a chance of becoming more human but crucially retaining the abilities of machines.
Smith goes about merging with all the humans and other machines, including the Oracle (who still somehow retains enough of herself to prompt Neo), and Neo merges with Smith.
If things go fine, the Oracle gets her upgrade...
As the Architect said, the Oracle is playing a dangerous game.
But life is dangerous
They want you to install Silverlight to view it.
Heavy water isn't that safe to drink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water#Effect_on_biological_systems
Sorry I think I confused you and cbreaker.
Sorry, I confused you and pnewhook.
> "They are constantly on. Look up the technology before you start arguing."
I don't have to look it up. I KNOW the technology.
Why don't YOU look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_cathode
quote: "The cathode is the negative electrode. Any gas discharge lamp has a pair of electrodes, acting as cathode and anode (the positive electrode). Both electrodes alternate between acting as an anode and a cathode when these devices run with alternating current."
And also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backlight#Flicker_due_to_backlight_dimming
You remind me of an AI I was messing about with earlier. Pathetic, but as expected given the earlier responses.
Get all accounts pwned at the same time too?
Hey, you're the one who said:
"I disagree. At 60Hz each eye (120Hz total), there is no perceivable flicker at all on active glasses"
"Barring hardware problems you will see no flicker. Hate to break it to you but you do not have super vision."
"30Hz is the scientifically accepted threshold."
I was just pointing out that that you're wrong. Humans with normal human vision can see the flicker at such low refresh rates. No super vision is required.
Even now you say you see flicker from a 60Hz CRT. 3D shutter goggles will be similar to CRTs since they cycle between blocked/black and visible at 60Hz per eye. In comparison LCD displays may not actually go to black (the LCD backlights may run at higher Hz than 60).
And where's the source for the claim: "30Hz is the scientifically accepted threshold."?
Whether you or I find such low refresh rates acceptable or not is besides the point.
If you have difficulty realizing when you're wrong and spouting bullshit claims, it's your loss dude.
They're not unwatchable. But 24fps is really crappy. Especially when the scene changes a lot, either everything is blurred and smeared (if they motion-blur stuff), or you see stuff "rippling" down.
I'd like to see evidence of your "scientifically accepted threshold".
Try this: move your hand quickly in front of a 60Hz light source. Move your hand quickly in sunlight. Do you see a difference in the movement images? I do and I bet many others do too. Your hand just doesn't look like it's moving as smoothly when lit at 60Hz. There are gaps in the images.
In contrast, if the light source was "strobing" at a much higher rate, say 20000Hz, you probably would not see a significant difference when compared with sunlight. The image of your moving hand would be updating at 20000 times a second. The gaps would be imperceptible.
Therefore 60 frames per second is far from a sufficient refresh rate for reproducing perfectly smooth and steady motion video for human eyes. I suspect you can even see the difference for 120Hz (normal fluorescent lighting powered by 60Hz AC lights at this rate).
Eyes don't work like digital cameras. Whether you can easily detect 60Hz also depends on the contrast between the frames and the stuff in the frames, and whether it goes to black or not. LCDs tend to smear stuff more than CRTs, and CRTs tend to go to black between refreshes by the electron beam. Many people can easily tell the difference between a CRT monitor running at 85Hz and one running at 70Hz. One is just a lot more "solid". 60Hz flickers far more perceptibly.
Lastly, many only have to look off to the side of the screen and their peripheral vision will tell them if the image flickers. Human peripheral vision is usually more sensitive to quick motion than the central vision.
> What do you think is going to happen?
:).
If I were IBM, I'd donate some money to keep Mozilla going. The more choices there are the more likely some CxO is going to just pay IBM to not have to think about them
> They're trying to become the Mercedes-Benz of IT. They're going mostly to the high end of the enterprise.
;).
Climbing up the ladder may work, but don't be surprised by how high and fast Intel, AMD and their partners can climb
DEC and SGI also went for the high end of IT.
HP's HP/UX is good as dead, and they've done a good job killing off Tandem and VMS.
So far IBM is still holding out with their POWER stuff.
"the last time my cc details were swiped I got credit on the credit card, but still had to pay the accrued (fraudulent) charges from my own bank account."
What's your exposure limit where you are? In the US it's supposed to be USD50 under certain conditions and zero under other conditions, assuming you report it within 2 days of _learning_ of the loss or theft of access.
If you're in the USA, you got screwed by your bank, and perhaps you should sue them for the money and damages - it's the "American Way" right? ;).
See section 909:
http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-1350.html
Some interpret section 909 as the customer is only liable if the card is stolen or lost, and not liable at all otherwise:
909. Consumer liability for unauthorized transfers
(a) A consumer shall be liable for any unauthorized electronic fund transfer involving the account of such consumer only if the card or other means of access utilized for such transfer was an accepted card or other means of access and if the issuer of such card, code, or other means of access has provided a means whereby the user of such card, code, or other means of access can be identified as the person authorized to use it, such as by signature, photograph, or fingerprint or by electronic or mechanical confirmation. In no event, however, shall a consumer's liability for an unauthorized transfer exceed the lesser of--
(1) $50; or
(2) the amount of money or value of property or services obtained in such unauthorized electronic fund transfer prior to the time the financial institution is notified of, or otherwise becomes aware of, circumstances which lead to the reasonable belief that an unauthorized electronic fund transfer involving the consumer's account has been or may be effected. Notice under this paragraph is sufficient when such steps have been taken as may be reasonably required in the ordinary course of business to provide the financial institution with the pertinent information, whether or not any particular officer, employee, or agent of the financial institution does in fact receive such information.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, reimbursement need not be made to the consumer for losses the financial institution establishes would not have occurred but for the failure of the consumer to report within sixty days of transmittal of the statement (or in extenuating circumstances such as extended travel or hospitalization, within a reasonable time under the circumstances) any unauthorized electronic fund transfer or account error which appears on the periodic statement provided to the consumer under section 906. In addition, reimbursement need not be made to the consumer for losses which the financial institution establishes would not have occurred but for the failure of the consumer to report any loss or theft of a card or other means of access within two business days after the consumer learns of the loss or theft (or in extenuating circumstances such as extended travel or hospitalization, within a longer period which is reasonable under the circumstances), but the consumer's liability under this subsection in any such case may not exceed a total of $500, or the amount of unauthorized electronic fund transfers which occur following the close of two business days (or such longer period) after the consumer learns of the loss or theft but prior to notice to the financial institution under this subsection, whichever is less.
(b) In any action which involves a consumer's liability for an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, the burden of proof is upon the financial institution to show that the electronic fund transfer was authorized or, if the electronic fund transfer was unauthorized, then the burden of proof is upon the financial institution to establish that the conditions of liability set forth in subsection (a) have been met, and, if the transfer was initiated after the effective date of section 9
> I'm really thinking the cash idea is the way to go from now on. :-(
Why? If I get mugged at (or on the way to) the gas station I lose my cash. If my card gets skimmed, I do not lose my money. If many people's cards get skimmed from the same place, I may not even have to dispute the transaction - the card company will just cancel the card, invalidate the transactions and issue me a new card.
From the article:
When a card is compromised, however, the card issuer has to reimburse the customer. If incidents of skimming at unattended terminals such as pay-at-the-pump continue to rise, gaps in security may be looked at with more scrutiny.
Cash may be more private, but cash is definitely not safer than credit cards.
And that's nominal. I'm sure you can do much better if you use a better antenna and are not such a stickler for standards.
I'm more attached to mine.
> Gold is certainly not perfect, but it is measurably better than fiat currencies.
I disagree. Using gold as a currency is a stupid idea, there isn't that much gold around so it will make gold too expensive to be used as a raw material. Go work out how much available gold there is per person. Work out how much your salary will have to be in grams of gold. Gold is too useful a raw material for lots of stuff to be wasted as a currency.
Widespread use of the US Dollar is advantageous to the USA, since if many countries in the world use the US dollar to buy and sell stuff (oil, grain, software, hardware etc), it means those countries will have to hold large net positive amounts of the US dollar.
Whenever the USA creates more US dollars, anyone (this includes countries) holding net positive amounts of the US dollar effectively gets taxed.
Now the "proper USA deal" should be the US Gov (Mugabe) creates more US dollars, and hands some over to its citizens (cronies) whether directly or indirectly. So the US Gov gets richer, the US citizens are OK, and the rest of the world (in "US Dollar Zimbabwe") gets poorer.
The problem for the US is if more and more switch from the US dollar to other stuff like gold or the Euro.
You might see stuff like this instead:
"Please wait, checking permissions and calculating number of objects to be copied..." (slight pause after this)
Copy progress bar appears on mobile device (with cancel option).
Time passes...
Done...
Ender's Game with Korean gamers... Or Starcraft Live Edition?
If the system doesn't care about getting his laptop to him, why should he go to court?
;)
Maybe the camera is for the kangaroo court of public opinion - Youtube.