If we're going so far down this "cats are intelligent creatures and are living beings that should be cared for" line, then what about the rats?
Fancy rats are extremely intelligent (far more so than cats) and affectionate (anything's more affectionate than a cat), and make great pets. IANAB (not a biologist), but while I suspect fancy rats constitute a seperate subspecies from their feral cousins, the feral rats are just as intelligent and alive... and as far as some previous posters are concerned, these qualities seem to demand care.
Frankly, I'd go for the steel wool, and in the mean time, put down some more interesting chew toys for them. That'll keep them off the cables til you can block up all the holes. Its also cute.
The first point, that is indeed what I meant; when looking at real 3d.
The second point; indeed, I am duly ashamed. And while I appreciate that a 3rd eye probably wouldn't enhance depth perception, there are creatures out there with more than 2 eyes... and the 3d cinema setup that such a physiology would require to seem "convincing" would indeed be interesting.
They've been doing Windows mobile versions of Treos (the palm phone) since the 300 I think. These gradually became more dominant, until palm os versions basically stopped appearing.
To be honest, they've been "reinventing PalmOS" a couple of times now, and none of these have come to fruition as far as I'm aware. I do hope WebOS does better, but you're right, for penetration of their handsets it would seem to make a lot more sense to use Android or stick to WM. Maybe they just like having their own OS...
A one-eyed person can see no more depth than is encoded in a standard 2d image. (Ok by moving the head side-to-side etc they can infer more, but thats based on motion)
If you have only 2 eyes, then presenting each eye with a single image is sufficient for "full 3d" and offers the same, if not better, depth detail than a solid "image block" that could alter 1080 transparent layers of pixels.
Now if you had 3 eyes, clearly a 3rd channel would be needed to achieve the same affect
And thats not entirely accurate either, as although the light is being emitted from the same area for each image, its polarised differently, such that there are in fact two full pixels of color information per 2-dimensional pixel, although only discernable once appropriately filtered.
So although it may not be encoded along the z spatial axis, there is a third dimension to the "image" - one that is 2 pixels "deep"
Take it to its logical conclusion... the roads get worse and worse, until they're actually worse than going off-road altogether.
At some point, it has to become less efficient than driving on a smooth road.
And I think that point occurs as soon as the road stops being smooth...
Consider the energy lost (noise, heat, up/down motion) by travelling over a pothole. This energy is effectively* lost from your forward kinetic energy, and this is the only energy source that these shocks can access.
Even if they were 100% efficient in some conditions, they couldn't actually produce a better outcome than if the pothole wasn't there in the first place. Ergo, smooth roads are still better.
* Ok, so it comes from your gravitational potential energy you lose as you fall down into the hole... but then unless you come to a complete halt, you have to exchange your forward kinetic energy for more potential energy to climb back out again. And this process whole process will produce more heat than simply travelling along pothole-free road.
Unfortunately for this argument, not everyone studies computer science.
If they're writing essays, or doing some excel statistics, or whatever really, most will tend to stick to what they know and use at home...
I'd caution against forcing a transition away from windows/office etc, I can easily imagine that, if half the computers were moved completely to OSS, the other half will become significantly more popular...
MSL's going to be nuclear, but this rear-end-of-a-tricycle seems a bit small for that. And the potential of it falling off a cliff and going pop is probably slightly greater.
The Value way has consistantly been free DLC, for PC at least.
HL2DM, all the (significant) TF2 content updates... all free.
I suspect the article may be just being cautious, as I'd be very suprised if Valve were going to charge for this expansion. If they do, I guess they would perhaps do so so that console owners don't feel put out at being charged?
By your logic, I could say something about how there's a lot more non-Christians in the world than Christians.
So what, indeed. By my logic, you certainly could. Why shouldn't you? If it was relevant to the conversation, it would probably even be a sensible point to make.
As far as I can see, you're the only one thats been restricting the topic only to america. But if you want to keep it that way, its fine by me. Forgive me for pointing out the outside world, I'll leave and go back there now.
The fusion will be of lighter nuclei; deuterium or helium probably. They won't be fusing the 'sludge' or anything heavy that; that would take more energy than it would produce (thats why stars stop fusing at iron).
The fusion of the lighter nuclei will produce a lot of neutrons, their idea being to bombard the 'sludge' with neutrons to cause its nuclei to destabilise and fiss apart. Its kinda win-win really: the fusion reaction won't be terribly efficient, and on its own would probably produce only about as much energy as it takes to sustain it, but the fissing of the heavy nuclei will release a bunch more.
They're very different drinks. Although speaking as a Scot, the only Whisk(e)y i actually like is Jack Daniels, and being american, thats Whiskey too. Meh.
I have to agree... but I've seen a lot of university students in that situation, albeit not studying at quite as high prestige an institution as Berkeley.
Those cases differ significantly from the kind of problems that a starcraft course would presumably cover, though I'll admit I usually incorrectly assume discreet, turn-based game theory to be the entirety of the field
Don't get me wrong, I think its shameful that Berkeley is doing this...
Slashdot Mirror
If we're going so far down this "cats are intelligent creatures and are living beings that should be cared for" line, then what about the rats?
Fancy rats are extremely intelligent (far more so than cats) and affectionate (anything's more affectionate than a cat), and make great pets. IANAB (not a biologist), but while I suspect fancy rats constitute a seperate subspecies from their feral cousins, the feral rats are just as intelligent and alive... and as far as some previous posters are concerned, these qualities seem to demand care.
Frankly, I'd go for the steel wool, and in the mean time, put down some more interesting chew toys for them. That'll keep them off the cables til you can block up all the holes. Its also cute.
The first point, that is indeed what I meant; when looking at real 3d.
The second point; indeed, I am duly ashamed. And while I appreciate that a 3rd eye probably wouldn't enhance depth perception, there are creatures out there with more than 2 eyes... and the 3d cinema setup that such a physiology would require to seem "convincing" would indeed be interesting.
They've been doing Windows mobile versions of Treos (the palm phone) since the 300 I think. These gradually became more dominant, until palm os versions basically stopped appearing.
To be honest, they've been "reinventing PalmOS" a couple of times now, and none of these have come to fruition as far as I'm aware. I do hope WebOS does better, but you're right, for penetration of their handsets it would seem to make a lot more sense to use Android or stick to WM. Maybe they just like having their own OS...
A one-eyed person can see no more depth than is encoded in a standard 2d image. (Ok by moving the head side-to-side etc they can infer more, but thats based on motion)
If you have only 2 eyes, then presenting each eye with a single image is sufficient for "full 3d" and offers the same, if not better, depth detail than a solid "image block" that could alter 1080 transparent layers of pixels.
Now if you had 3 eyes, clearly a 3rd channel would be needed to achieve the same affect
2048x1080x2 See argument here
And thats not entirely accurate either, as although the light is being emitted from the same area for each image, its polarised differently, such that there are in fact two full pixels of color information per 2-dimensional pixel, although only discernable once appropriately filtered.
So although it may not be encoded along the z spatial axis, there is a third dimension to the "image" - one that is 2 pixels "deep"
Take it to its logical conclusion... the roads get worse and worse, until they're actually worse than going off-road altogether.
At some point, it has to become less efficient than driving on a smooth road.
And I think that point occurs as soon as the road stops being smooth...
Consider the energy lost (noise, heat, up/down motion) by travelling over a pothole. This energy is effectively* lost from your forward kinetic energy, and this is the only energy source that these shocks can access.
Even if they were 100% efficient in some conditions, they couldn't actually produce a better outcome than if the pothole wasn't there in the first place. Ergo, smooth roads are still better.
* Ok, so it comes from your gravitational potential energy you lose as you fall down into the hole... but then unless you come to a complete halt, you have to exchange your forward kinetic energy for more potential energy to climb back out again. And this process whole process will produce more heat than simply travelling along pothole-free road.
Guys, come on, there's only one Ohm's law:
J = sigma E
The V=IR etc crap are just electronics rules of thumb...
Incidentally, does it annoy anyone else that slashdot blocks special characters? eg &-amp-; or in this case &-sigma-; (without the -)
Most? Citation or this is demoted to "many"
Unfortunately for this argument, not everyone studies computer science.
If they're writing essays, or doing some excel statistics, or whatever really, most will tend to stick to what they know and use at home...
I'd caution against forcing a transition away from windows/office etc, I can easily imagine that, if half the computers were moved completely to OSS, the other half will become significantly more popular...
MSL's going to be nuclear, but this rear-end-of-a-tricycle seems a bit small for that. And the potential of it falling off a cliff and going pop is probably slightly greater.
The Value way has consistantly been free DLC, for PC at least. HL2DM, all the (significant) TF2 content updates ... all free.
I suspect the article may be just being cautious, as I'd be very suprised if Valve were going to charge for this expansion. If they do, I guess they would perhaps do so so that console owners don't feel put out at being charged?
+1 agree wholeheartedly
By your logic, I could say something about how there's a lot more non-Christians in the world than Christians.
So what, indeed. By my logic, you certainly could. Why shouldn't you? If it was relevant to the conversation, it would probably even be a sensible point to make.
As far as I can see, you're the only one thats been restricting the topic only to america. But if you want to keep it that way, its fine by me. Forgive me for pointing out the outside world, I'll leave and go back there now.
You know, there are more people in the world that are not Americans than those that are...
So the statement could certainly still stand despite your objections.
Surely the only entities that argue more than nations and toddlers are private corporations?
The fusion will be of lighter nuclei; deuterium or helium probably. They won't be fusing the 'sludge' or anything heavy that; that would take more energy than it would produce (thats why stars stop fusing at iron).
The fusion of the lighter nuclei will produce a lot of neutrons, their idea being to bombard the 'sludge' with neutrons to cause its nuclei to destabilise and fiss apart. Its kinda win-win really: the fusion reaction won't be terribly efficient, and on its own would probably produce only about as much energy as it takes to sustain it, but the fissing of the heavy nuclei will release a bunch more.
And if Virgin Galactic build their proposed spaceport there, could we have booze-powered spaceships? Please?
Yeah, Whiskey is Irish, Whisky is Scottish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky
They're very different drinks. Although speaking as a Scot, the only Whisk(e)y i actually like is Jack Daniels, and being american, thats Whiskey too. Meh.
I was all ready with a reply about how it wasn't literally the S & U characters, but these energy levels... but no, it is literally S & U characters.
All this time and I'd never realised that my HD stores data just by writing it in very small print...
Yeah cos antimatter annihilation's fun when you've got all your data stored on it...
Whatever it eats, its going to have to combust, so that means more CO2 getting pumped out, not less.
So don't look to a pack of these for salvation.
Once they install a "baby-robot making arm" onto the other end, they'll be all set to take over.
I have to agree... but I've seen a lot of university students in that situation, albeit not studying at quite as high prestige an institution as Berkeley.
Those cases differ significantly from the kind of problems that a starcraft course would presumably cover, though I'll admit I usually incorrectly assume discreet, turn-based game theory to be the entirety of the field
Don't get me wrong, I think its shameful that Berkeley is doing this...