Phobos and Deimos are so small that they would hardly be causing any significant tides.
Phobos is the larger and closer of the moons of Mars, but unless I miscalculated, it has about 6 million times less mass than our Luna. While it orbit has significantly smaller diameter (average of about 9000 kilometers vs. 384000 kilometers), it still has far less gravitational pull (probably hundreds of times less, but I'm too lazy to calculate it as it's time to sleep in order to be functional tomorrow at work:)
Why do it the hard way? Use something like LyX as a frontend. It offers a nice equation editor and reduces the need for manual tex/latex writing significantly (basically, if you want something fancy, you may have to do it manually, but routine stuff becomes pretty transparent).
(Well, it does not help with the original question about Word->HTML conversion...)
When you come to look at the RAW data, though, it will be obvious that there are only 2M pixels in it.
I'm a bit sceptical about this being the reason, as the use of the color grid on the sensors is a well-known fact anyway. I'd think that a significant number of people who are buying a camera and browse for example dpreview are going to notice this. (probably a bigger number of people than the number of frequent RAW users, IMO)
I hate the digital. I hate its crappy, battery-sucking LCD viewfinder that is useless in bright sunlight. I hate its shutter lag that assures I always miss the shot. I hate its habit of saving power by shutting off every two minutes , assuring that I am still rebooting my camera whenever the next photo op occurs. I hate the fact that I need to carry twice my weight in batteries to every major event. I hate burrowing through menus using only two tiny buttons whose functions change at the whim of the camera's software developer in order to change simple camera settings.
Well, it's a matter of digital camera. My Canon 20D uses only optical viewfinder, does not really have any significant shutter lag (what there is, is about 0.07 seconds), time from power-on to photo taken/displayed on LCD is 0.3 seconds, which is pretty much instant and one battery was recently enough for a day of pretty intense shooting (something like 500+ photos). If this sounds like it's above an average digital camera, its little sister 350D from Canon offers most of this with price of about 800 dollars/euros, pretty much the same that the more expensive non-DSLR digital cameras were a few years ago. While the price does not include lenses, something like 50mm f/1.8 adds only about 100 euros/dollars and provides very good image quality, if you do not miss zoom functionality.
(Of course other companies provide their own DSLRs with more or less similar features, Canon is just what I'm most familiar with.)
I have very little country music on my CD collection (mostly progressive rock, some folk and old-time synth stuff), but I quite liked the particular song in the intro.
Take it easy. I have successfully passed all the math courses that were required by my master's degree, even if the grades were closer to the low end of the scale.:) But in this case, my viewpoint was more practical than theoretical. I'll elaborate:
Sure, you can argue that no matter how many bits and whatever the amount of samples per second, the resulting sound will just always be a stair-stepped (i.e. discrete and quantized) approximation of the analog signal, albeit with an ever shrinking difference. But the point is, with a sufficient amount of bits and sampling frequency and even with currently available technology, the limitations of the human ear will prevent any difference to be heard. After all, the music is primarily meant for human ears.:)
(I've occasionally also stumbled into comments mentioning that the Planck distance and time would also make analog signals effectively quantized and discrete, though obviously enormously more fine-grained than anything we're able to output from a digital instrument. But as physics was not my major, I'll happily admit that this is something I'm not qualified to comment with any authority)
The analogy sounds flawed to me. After all, the instrument is not playing back a recording, whether it is analog or digital. A human is required to play the instrument regardless of the exact technology between the player and the listener; in itself it will just sit there and be silent.
I also fail to understand what makes digital systems inherently incapable of sounding exactly the same as analog systems. But I've got no trouble with the idea that the choice of technology in itself is a matter of personal preference; it's just that I find the rationalization of the choice quite unnecessary.
The father of the.mod files is Karsten Obarski (I can still remember listening the Sleepwalk and other pretty much very first mods, how damn fine they sounded those days around '87...)
As an old-time Amiga fan, I'll have to note that there were also trackers (as the.mod and friends composing programs were/are known) that could play more than 4 sounds on the basic Amiga 500 sound hardware since late 80's. OctaMED (these days pretty much Windows only, but older Amiga versions do exist), Digibooster Pro and Octalzyer are good examples of these.
I second the StumbleUpon. I've stumbled into some pretty interesting sites with it, and the ability to read other peoples comments about particular site is a nice bonus.
Regarding GIMP and ICC profiles, the answer is a mild yes. GIMP supports use of "display filter" that allows you to select a ICC profile. The image displayed on screen should then be converted on the fly to correspond with the ICC profile.
Whether that is enough is a matter of individual persons requirements.
Because I wish not to let the nature decide when I've seen enough of things? Even the thousand years would not be enough for that. Why should I let 'nature' decide when I have seen enough instead of myself? If you feel that using healthcare and other stuff is messing up with nature, fine. However, I think there are plenty of us that do not share the same opinion.
I want to visit other star systems. I want to see nebulas and other galaxies up close. I want to become a photographer so good that I can master every category seen so far and a few others rising in the future. I want to follow the evolution of individual stars. I want to learn things no-one has even dreamed about yet. I want to hear all the great music that will be released in the future.
Are these things really doable in the 'natural' lifespan? Why should I not pursue these goals, but accept the 'natural' limitations instead?
Somehow I think this wouldn't really be a permanent problem. Just use the latest buzzword of 30 years older world to provide the capability, be it nanotechnological memory extension components that interface with the brain or something that we can't even envision yet.
Not a problem for me. I don't have any wish to have children. On the other hand, I have quite absolute wish to live 'forever'. I want to see Pleiades from a few tens of lightyears away, M82 filling the whole sky, learning practically everything about photography and a few other projects that take some time.
Honestly, I don't understand people that think everything they want is accomplished during hundred years or so.
Yep, while Hubble definitely has limits where it can point at given time (not too close to the Sun etc), this thing would see only half of the sky at all.
Also, for half of the year, when the sun does not set at the pole area, this thing would be able to do very little...
That being said, if someone wishes to build it, I don't think it as useless idea; I just don't see it as a direct 1:1 replacement for a space-based telescope either.
While it's not a magic bullet, Valgrind can help a lot to find otherwise difficult to spot memory handling errors during code development. And quite easy to use / requires quite little additional effort. In addition to memory use debugging it also offers features such as cache profiling.
Its downside is that with computation/memory intensive programs its overhead can be quite noticeable; don't expect e.g. Mozilla to be a speed demon when run with Valgrind. And oh, it's mostly x86 - only, although an experimental PPC version seems to exist these days as well.
If you widen the gamut of CCDs, you'll probably want to add a few bits to each color channel as well -- use 12 bit color instead of 8 bit for instance.
Many CCDs on digital cameras (even "prosumer" ones in addition to DSLRs have offered >8 bits per color channel for a few years, although it's generally available only via RAW (or perhaps TIFF as well in some cases?). Of course, on the non-DSLRs the problem is that even with low ISO settings, the noise caused by small photosite size more or less drowns the information in the 'additional' bits.
My Canon Powershot G3 can take several hundreds of photos with one charge of the battery with the LCD on, and I don't think the custom battery is *that* much superior to set of "normal" AAs..?
Gecko - based browsers seem to be on rise, though. Google should be pretty "neutral" website, and the graph on their Zeitgeist page shows steadily rising line for Mozilla, Firebird and friends.
While Mozilla, Firebird and friends are not perhaps exactly pushing IE out of use, they seem to be eating little bits of IE usage. Time will tell how much or little.
Far too much resources thrown at a simple task; I'd use my Vic-20 (about 1MHz). A tape recorder would serve as a nice additional storage for temporary data, necessary because I don't think even 28 kilobytes available with memory expansion module would cut it.
Re:Problem with images
on
Gimp Hits 2.0
·
· Score: 1
Unless your idea of digital photography is to look at point-and-shoot JPG shapshots, that is.
I'd think that this is exactly the idea that nine out of ten photographers have about it, which probably thus also form the vast majority of those people that use image processing software to edit their photos... So, is this segment somehow worthless?
The two online banks I use here in Finland have worked nicely with all browsers I've used. Generally, complaints around here about the banks and browsers seem to be nonexistent. Perhaps it's somewhat regional?
(not a flame against a country; I don't even know where you post from;)
Perhaps I just feel that I don't need DVD drive for anything, especially because the bare bones system can easily be installed from one CD and the rest via broadband?
Slashdot Mirror
Phobos and Deimos are so small that they would hardly be causing any significant tides.
:)
Phobos is the larger and closer of the moons of Mars, but unless I miscalculated, it has about 6 million times less mass than our Luna. While it orbit has significantly smaller diameter (average of about 9000 kilometers vs. 384000 kilometers), it still has far less gravitational pull (probably hundreds of times less, but I'm too lazy to calculate it as it's time to sleep in order to be functional tomorrow at work
Why do it the hard way? Use something like LyX as a frontend. It offers a nice equation editor and reduces the need for manual tex/latex writing significantly (basically, if you want something fancy, you may have to do it manually, but routine stuff becomes pretty transparent).
(Well, it does not help with the original question about Word->HTML conversion...)
I'm a bit sceptical about this being the reason, as the use of the color grid on the sensors is a well-known fact anyway. I'd think that a significant number of people who are buying a camera and browse for example dpreview are going to notice this. (probably a bigger number of people than the number of frequent RAW users, IMO)
I hate the digital. I hate its crappy, battery-sucking LCD viewfinder that is useless in bright sunlight. I hate its shutter lag that assures I always miss the shot. I hate its habit of saving power by shutting off every two minutes , assuring that I am still rebooting my camera whenever the next photo op occurs. I hate the fact that I need to carry twice my weight in batteries to every major event. I hate burrowing through menus using only two tiny buttons whose functions change at the whim of the camera's software developer in order to change simple camera settings.
Well, it's a matter of digital camera. My Canon 20D uses only optical viewfinder, does not really have any significant shutter lag (what there is, is about 0.07 seconds), time from power-on to photo taken/displayed on LCD is 0.3 seconds, which is pretty much instant and one battery was recently enough for a day of pretty intense shooting (something like 500+ photos). If this sounds like it's above an average digital camera, its little sister 350D from Canon offers most of this with price of about 800 dollars/euros, pretty much the same that the more expensive non-DSLR digital cameras were a few years ago. While the price does not include lenses, something like 50mm f/1.8 adds only about 100 euros/dollars and provides very good image quality, if you do not miss zoom functionality.
(Of course other companies provide their own DSLRs with more or less similar features, Canon is just what I'm most familiar with.)
I have very little country music on my CD collection (mostly progressive rock, some folk and old-time synth stuff), but I quite liked the particular song in the intro.
Take it easy. I have successfully passed all the math courses that were required by my master's degree, even if the grades were closer to the low end of the scale. :) But in this case, my viewpoint was more practical than theoretical. I'll elaborate:
:)
Sure, you can argue that no matter how many bits and whatever the amount of samples per second, the resulting sound will just always be a stair-stepped (i.e. discrete and quantized) approximation of the analog signal, albeit with an ever shrinking difference. But the point is, with a sufficient amount of bits and sampling frequency and even with currently available technology, the limitations of the human ear will prevent any difference to be heard. After all, the music is primarily meant for human ears.
(I've occasionally also stumbled into comments mentioning that the Planck distance and time would also make analog signals effectively quantized and discrete, though obviously enormously more fine-grained than anything we're able to output from a digital instrument. But as physics was not my major, I'll happily admit that this is something I'm not qualified to comment with any authority)
The analogy sounds flawed to me. After all, the instrument is not playing back a recording, whether it is analog or digital. A human is required to play the instrument regardless of the exact technology between the player and the listener; in itself it will just sit there and be silent.
I also fail to understand what makes digital systems inherently incapable of sounding exactly the same as analog systems. But I've got no trouble with the idea that the choice of technology in itself is a matter of personal preference; it's just that I find the rationalization of the choice quite unnecessary.
The father of the .mod files is Karsten Obarski (I can still remember listening the Sleepwalk and other pretty much very first mods, how damn fine they sounded those days around '87...)
.mod and friends composing programs were/are known) that could play more than 4 sounds on the basic Amiga 500 sound hardware since late 80's. OctaMED (these days pretty much Windows only, but older Amiga versions do exist), Digibooster Pro and Octalzyer are good examples of these.
As an old-time Amiga fan, I'll have to note that there were also trackers (as the
I second the StumbleUpon. I've stumbled into some pretty interesting sites with it, and the ability to read other peoples comments about particular site is a nice bonus.
Regarding GIMP and ICC profiles, the answer is a mild yes. GIMP supports use of "display filter" that allows you to select a ICC profile. The image displayed on screen should then be converted on the fly to correspond with the ICC profile.
Whether that is enough is a matter of individual persons requirements.
Because I wish not to let the nature decide when I've seen enough of things? Even the thousand years would not be enough for that. Why should I let 'nature' decide when I have seen enough instead of myself? If you feel that using healthcare and other stuff is messing up with nature, fine. However, I think there are plenty of us that do not share the same opinion.
I want to visit other star systems. I want to see nebulas and other galaxies up close. I want to become a photographer so good that I can master every category seen so far and a few others rising in the future. I want to follow the evolution of individual stars. I want to learn things no-one has even dreamed about yet. I want to hear all the great music that will be released in the future.
Are these things really doable in the 'natural' lifespan? Why should I not pursue these goals, but accept the 'natural' limitations instead?
Somehow I think this wouldn't really be a permanent problem. Just use the latest buzzword of 30 years older world to provide the capability, be it nanotechnological memory extension components that interface with the brain or something that we can't even envision yet.
Not a problem for me. I don't have any wish to have children. On the other hand, I have quite absolute wish to live 'forever'. I want to see Pleiades from a few tens of lightyears away, M82 filling the whole sky, learning practically everything about photography and a few other projects that take some time.
Honestly, I don't understand people that think everything they want is accomplished during hundred years or so.
ASCII Star Wars / Matrix would be easy. Just use aalib to render the output of e.g. Mplayer.
So, a little bit of competition would hurt someone..?
Well,
the breast equation sounds pretty interesting.
Got to try to visualize it someday to see how well it corresponds with the reality.
Yep, while Hubble definitely has limits where it can point at given time (not too close to the Sun etc), this thing would see only half of the sky at all.
Also, for half of the year, when the sun does not set at the pole area, this thing would be able to do very little...
That being said, if someone wishes to build it, I don't think it as useless idea; I just don't see it as a direct 1:1 replacement for a space-based telescope either.
While it's not a magic bullet, Valgrind can help a lot to find otherwise difficult to spot memory handling errors during code development. And quite easy to use / requires quite little additional effort. In addition to memory use debugging it also offers features such as cache profiling.
Its downside is that with computation/memory intensive programs its overhead can be quite noticeable; don't expect e.g. Mozilla to be a speed demon when run with Valgrind. And oh, it's mostly x86 - only, although an experimental PPC version seems to exist these days as well.
If you widen the gamut of CCDs, you'll probably want to add a few bits to each color channel as well -- use 12 bit color instead of 8 bit for instance.
Many CCDs on digital cameras (even "prosumer" ones in addition to DSLRs have offered >8 bits per color channel for a few years, although it's generally available only via RAW (or perhaps TIFF as well in some cases?). Of course, on the non-DSLRs the problem is that even with low ISO settings, the noise caused by small photosite size more or less drowns the information in the 'additional' bits.
My Canon Powershot G3 can take several hundreds of photos with one charge of the battery with the LCD on, and I don't think the custom battery is *that* much superior to set of "normal" AAs..?
Gecko - based browsers seem to be on rise, though. Google should be pretty "neutral" website, and the graph on their Zeitgeist page shows steadily rising line for Mozilla, Firebird and friends.
While Mozilla, Firebird and friends are not perhaps exactly pushing IE out of use, they seem to be eating little bits of IE usage. Time will tell how much or little.
Far too much resources thrown at a simple task; I'd use my Vic-20 (about 1MHz). A tape recorder would serve as a nice additional storage for temporary data, necessary because I don't think even 28 kilobytes available with memory expansion module would cut it.
Unless your idea of digital photography is to look at point-and-shoot JPG shapshots, that is.
I'd think that this is exactly the idea that nine out of ten photographers have about it, which probably thus also form the vast majority of those people that use image processing software to edit their photos... So, is this segment somehow worthless?
The two online banks I use here in Finland have worked nicely with all browsers I've used. Generally, complaints around here about the banks and browsers seem to be nonexistent. Perhaps it's somewhat regional?
;)
(not a flame against a country; I don't even know where you post from
Perhaps I just feel that I don't need DVD drive for anything, especially because the bare bones system can easily be installed from one CD and the rest via broadband?