I used to use VLC exclusively, but now I really only use it for media files that SMPlayer doesn’t like.
I initially made the switch after somebody said that SMPlayer could be configured to require very little resources – it was about the only way I could get videos to play halfway decently on a particular computer that I was stuck using for a while. VLC wouldn’t play anything without it skipping badly on that computer even after I tried to configure it to be as minimalistic as possible.
Main reasons for using SMPlayer now: Interface looks better; default pixel-smoothing video filter looks better; subtitles look better. Of course it has most of the same selling features as VLC... free, plays just about anything, doesn’t invade my PC with crap I don’t want, hotkeys (though different from VLC’s), lots of options. It also has a portable version.
Come to think of it, about the only feature I’d really point out that VLC has and SMPlayer lacks is the ability to transcode media. SMPlayer does have a nice feature which dumps every frame to an image while playing (shift-D starts/stops it), which is handy for making animated gifs.
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I don’t remember the last time I protested outside an abortion clinic so I don’t find it particularly inconsistent that I don’t protest outside IVF clinics either.
“Contemporary knowledge concerning the manner in which the human body reacts to freezing is based almost exclusively on these Nazi experiments. This, together with the recent use of data from Nazi research into the effects of phosgene gas, has proven controversial and presents an ethical dilemma for modern physicians who do not agree with the methods used to obtain this data.”
Surprisingly enough some of us are consistent... IVF “treatments” where a dozen embryos are created and one is ultimately born while the rest are killed is just as bad as abortion.
If someone wants to exclude by definition any research that has gone into “modern” (i.e. post-Darwin) science, as Daniel Dvorkin suggested, from anything that could possibly have been achieved via creationism, how is it simultaneously fair to build it upon the work of the pre-Darwin scientists who worked largely from a creationist point of view and who made tremendous contributions to what is known today as modern science?
It is inherently unfair to assume that all scientific discoveries that have been made since Darwin could never have been made by creationism and creationists shouldn’t be allowed to benefit from them. Doubly so when you consider that the principles upon which these scientists have built were largely discovered and mapped out by pre-Darwin scientists who did believe in a creation.
What is relevant is not what he would believe now, but what he believed then and whether or not he was able to make important scientific discoveries with his beliefs being as they were.
And I find the use of the word just as absurd when it’s done so as to exclude by definition all valid scientific research that’s been done since Darwin.
He was a contemporary of Darwin, and a monk. As Darwin’s theories weren’t widely accepted until after his time, and certainly not by the church, I doubt that Mendel had ever heard of him.
There are many "creationists" by your definition that only believed in it because it was the only known thing.
Whereas by most people’s definition, being a creationist precludes any sort of rational thinking.
The ones that say God made it this way and things don't evolve are limiting God's capabilities, in my opinion.
Things do evolve. To a degree. Not to the degree that evolution claims. And from a creationist’s perspective, God most likely did a damn good job of it the first time. Surprisingly enough, mutations are usually either harmful or at best neutral (no net benefit or marginal benefit due to some temporary trend of natural selection e.g. peppered moths).
Yet another person claiming that creationists have contributed nothing of value to science. Yawn.
The entire modern science of genetics is based on principles discovered by an Austrian monk in the 1800s. I’d like to see stem cell research happening without any of those discoveries.
If I should only benefit from the work of creationists, then you shouldn’t benefit from any of it. Is that the way it works?
And that proves? It’s not like it’s unheard of for Wikipedia to link to a source which, if you actually went to check, contradicts the Wikipedia article.
Tomorrow, someone could come along and edit a load of bullshit into the articles which you have so carefully written. Short of tracking him down and tracking you down and hauling you both into court to be cross-examined, what’s to prove that you are more authoritative on the subject than he is?
So it gets reverted – big deal. Now you just have to find the editor who reverted it and cross-examine him/her too.
There is still no guarantee that the version of the article which you cite is more authoritative than the possibly-contradictory article that someone will read at a later date.
What they give you is on-off pixels of a single wavelength. That's not all that useful for a display: in order to get gray scale or full color, you need to group a whole bunch of these pixels together, and you still get serious color quantization issues.
If they switch quickly enough you strobe it and rely on persistence of vision.
For instance this – apparently supposed to be using 2D barcodes to identify video clips for an interactive “choose your adventure” style flipbook, but – the exact same card is “scanned” in two demonstrations and two different video clips play.
Or this... notice that in every shot where his hand is in the video frame, you can tell that the video quickly does a blend transition from one cut to another every time the duck moves. Why exactly would they need to do it in multiple cuts?
BTW, I don't think I made it clear in my original post; the reason people think its a fake is because some stuff happens on the screen before he actually places the shape/figurine on it. He claims that his finger brushed the screen.
Yes... check my other posts. I don’t buy that explanation – it’s pretty clear that he didn’t touch the screen.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Filters + Skip the Inbox (archive it).
I used to use VLC exclusively, but now I really only use it for media files that SMPlayer doesn’t like.
I initially made the switch after somebody said that SMPlayer could be configured to require very little resources – it was about the only way I could get videos to play halfway decently on a particular computer that I was stuck using for a while. VLC wouldn’t play anything without it skipping badly on that computer even after I tried to configure it to be as minimalistic as possible.
Main reasons for using SMPlayer now: Interface looks better; default pixel-smoothing video filter looks better; subtitles look better. Of course it has most of the same selling features as VLC... free, plays just about anything, doesn’t invade my PC with crap I don’t want, hotkeys (though different from VLC’s), lots of options. It also has a portable version.
Come to think of it, about the only feature I’d really point out that VLC has and SMPlayer lacks is the ability to transcode media. SMPlayer does have a nice feature which dumps every frame to an image while playing (shift-D starts/stops it), which is handy for making animated gifs.
Option C) The simplest wrong answer is still wrong, and Occam’s Razor does not apply.
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I don’t remember the last time I protested outside an abortion clinic so I don’t find it particularly inconsistent that I don’t protest outside IVF clinics either.
The data is largely useless. At least within neuroscience, which is all I know about
Don’t try freezing to death any time soon, but if you do, you might want to know about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation#Modern_ethical_issues
“Contemporary knowledge concerning the manner in which the human body reacts to freezing is based almost exclusively on these Nazi experiments. This, together with the recent use of data from Nazi research into the effects of phosgene gas, has proven controversial and presents an ethical dilemma for modern physicians who do not agree with the methods used to obtain this data.”
Surprisingly enough some of us are consistent... IVF “treatments” where a dozen embryos are created and one is ultimately born while the rest are killed is just as bad as abortion.
If someone wants to exclude by definition any research that has gone into “modern” (i.e. post-Darwin) science, as Daniel Dvorkin suggested, from anything that could possibly have been achieved via creationism, how is it simultaneously fair to build it upon the work of the pre-Darwin scientists who worked largely from a creationist point of view and who made tremendous contributions to what is known today as modern science?
It is inherently unfair to assume that all scientific discoveries that have been made since Darwin could never have been made by creationism and creationists shouldn’t be allowed to benefit from them. Doubly so when you consider that the principles upon which these scientists have built were largely discovered and mapped out by pre-Darwin scientists who did believe in a creation.
What is relevant is not what he would believe now, but what he believed then and whether or not he was able to make important scientific discoveries with his beliefs being as they were.
And I find the use of the word just as absurd when it’s done so as to exclude by definition all valid scientific research that’s been done since Darwin.
Are you sure that monk was a creationist?
He was a contemporary of Darwin, and a monk. As Darwin’s theories weren’t widely accepted until after his time, and certainly not by the church, I doubt that Mendel had ever heard of him.
There are many "creationists" by your definition that only believed in it because it was the only known thing.
Whereas by most people’s definition, being a creationist precludes any sort of rational thinking.
The ones that say God made it this way and things don't evolve are limiting God's capabilities, in my opinion.
Things do evolve. To a degree. Not to the degree that evolution claims. And from a creationist’s perspective, God most likely did a damn good job of it the first time. Surprisingly enough, mutations are usually either harmful or at best neutral (no net benefit or marginal benefit due to some temporary trend of natural selection e.g. peppered moths).
If Mendel was not a creationist, I’d like to know what you think he was.
Not all creationists are raving anti-intellectuals, either.
Yet another person claiming that creationists have contributed nothing of value to science. Yawn.
The entire modern science of genetics is based on principles discovered by an Austrian monk in the 1800s. I’d like to see stem cell research happening without any of those discoveries.
If I should only benefit from the work of creationists, then you shouldn’t benefit from any of it. Is that the way it works?
It's a fantasy. Can't we just leave it at that and move on?
You must be new here.
Well played.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
It’s almost enough to convince a person that governments shouldn’t be overseeing religious contracts at all...
And that proves? It’s not like it’s unheard of for Wikipedia to link to a source which, if you actually went to check, contradicts the Wikipedia article.
a recursive transformation that can be applied as many times as necessary
640 o’s should be enough for anybody.
Tomorrow, someone could come along and edit a load of bullshit into the articles which you have so carefully written. Short of tracking him down and tracking you down and hauling you both into court to be cross-examined, what’s to prove that you are more authoritative on the subject than he is?
So it gets reverted – big deal. Now you just have to find the editor who reverted it and cross-examine him/her too.
There is still no guarantee that the version of the article which you cite is more authoritative than the possibly-contradictory article that someone will read at a later date.
What they give you is on-off pixels of a single wavelength. That's not all that useful for a display: in order to get gray scale or full color, you need to group a whole bunch of these pixels together, and you still get serious color quantization issues.
If they switch quickly enough you strobe it and rely on persistence of vision.
you'll just apply an appropriate image filter to provide the best upscaled visuals -- which isn't necessarily an integer-multiple pixel expansion
And also sometimes could be.
It doesn’t say “Posted from my iPad” at the bottom. Duh.
Some of the other videos on their blog have been goofy-looking / doubtfully credible too.
For instance this – apparently supposed to be using 2D barcodes to identify video clips for an interactive “choose your adventure” style flipbook, but – the exact same card is “scanned” in two demonstrations and two different video clips play.
Or this ... notice that in every shot where his hand is in the video frame, you can tell that the video quickly does a blend transition from one cut to another every time the duck moves. Why exactly would they need to do it in multiple cuts?
BTW, I don't think I made it clear in my original post; the reason people think its a fake is because some stuff happens on the screen before he actually places the shape/figurine on it. He claims that his finger brushed the screen.
Yes... check my other posts. I don’t buy that explanation – it’s pretty clear that he didn’t touch the screen.