If people here were coming up with alternate theories that account for all the observations that we presently see that have continually point physicists to the conclusion that there's some substantial non-baryonic mystery component of the universe, then that would be fine. But most of the oh-so insightful wisdom being shed seems to come from people who haven't even bothered to brush up on the wikipedia articles on the topic.
While it's certainly unscientific to shut out alternate theories based solely on the 'authority' of whatever happens to be the prevailing theory of the period, that doesn't mean that repeating the same arguments rooted in absolute ignorance of the topic can be passed off as unclouded wisdom. You think physicists haven't considered that general relativity could be wrong for the last 100 years? Or that there's some deeply seated ideological tether to Einstein that keeps modern physicists from wanting to one-up him? Anyone who could come up with something that unseats general relativity would be a sure bet for a nobel prize, and put themselves in the history books.
Maybe the sort of posts I'm talking about are actually a vocal minority of repeat offenders, but it's still pretty depressing when the signal to noise ratio here about certain science topics is even worse than a place like Reddit. Probably because most of the people in less "nerdy" communities haven't had a childhood of praise of super intelligence for being able to program the family's VCR and power cycle the cable modem to fix the "broken" internet.
...a cosmology news story so a bunch of Slashdot armchair physicists without a lick of physics education past high school can tell the science community they've been doing it wrong for the last 70 years.
It'll probably be 10 seconds of actual video which is then chopped up, played in varying arrangements and speeds, with a healthy dose of scary/ominous music, and then be inter-cut by experts that speak only in 4-5 second chunks, and then commercial breaks of 4 minutes trying to sell me a Honda. A wonderful way to spend an hour.
The problem with using those classifications is that it firmly puts every major New Atheist figure, including Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc, under the 'agnostic' umbrella and just about no one under the other. No reasonable person could or would say they're certain there is no god.
It's still about the frames per second, just not the 'average' frames per second over some long arbitrary sample period. The days of showing single figure timedemo-style averages are long gone on most tech websites.
Unless I'm reading the article wrong, all they're doing is recording frame rates via FRAPS and using that to calculate the latency between frames. High frame rate = low latency and vice versa.
They only have the film rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings by way of Saul Zaentz who purchased the rights back in the 70s. I'm pretty sure that the rights to everything outside of those specific books still rests in the hands of the Tolkien estate, and if Christopher Tolkien were going to sell the film rights to the rest of the material, he probably would have done it already (he's gone on record as not being happy with the films, and had to sue New Line in order to get their royalties from the films.)
If they're going to make 3 Tolkien films, New Line/Jackson's hands are pretty much tied to events in and those surrounding The Hobbit.
What do you think thermal pads, thermal compound, and cooling plates are for?
Paste/pads is to improve surface area contact as surface irregularities in hard metal surfaces introduce air gaps, while thermal interface materials are pliable enough to fill those gaps. In other words, paste is better than air and should really only be having to wet the surfaces and not prevent direct contact where it's possible.
I stand by my point - introducing an extra layer is actually acting as an insulator as the heat is having to transfer through an extra medium and extra imperfect contact points that it otherwise would not have had to. If adding a layer like this improved heat transfer, then adding a dozen or a hundred more should improve it even better (which obviously it does not, because that would be absurd.) To think of it another way, the best possible contact point between two metal surfaces would be to have them be a single piece of metal, which is effectively what you already have without additional shims.
If the shim is actually improving cooling performance somehow it would be due to another reason, such as by introducing additional tension on the retention mechanism of the heatsink, resulting in more force being applied to the CPU.
Why would you want 2 points of contact instead of just 1? The copper shim is technically a thermal insulator in that respect as it stands between your heat source and heat sink (even if the shim were made of diamond, it would still be functioning as an insulator between your source and sink.) The only benefit I could see being provided would be by increasing the compression of whatever spring is used to hold the heatsink down.
If introducing a shim or any sort of additional contact layer actually improved heat transfer, then why not sandwich 5 more shims?:P
Paste of some kind is extremely important. New retail CPUs with stock heatsinks though usually come with some sort of paste pre-applied onto the base of the heatsink.
Sorry, I wasn't using "1000" to mean a specific amount, it was just a convenient way of asking if the source data would dramatically balloon as there would have to be huge amounts of additional data to support all these unique POVs rather than just a pair of stereo POVs.
I guess basically where I'm coming from is asking myself the question: what is needed in order for a display using this 3D technology to replace the present 3D HDTV implementation while keeping at least a 1080p @ 60hz field per eyeball? What would be needed from Hollywood to produce content that supports this? Would they even be interested in this, considering they can't use this for theater ticket sales, and when they already cheap out by doing quasi-3D post-conversions? For video games? Would each frame have to be completely rendered hundreds of times in order to accurately populate all the potential POVs? Due to the massive amounts of processing overhead, would a game system be likely to support such a technology without a substantial install base? Would that substantial processing be better spent on other features?
This technology just seems to be a lot more substantial than a simple new 3D format. It seems more akin to the jump between SD and HDTV, and would have all the same hiccups and delays. I'll be old and gray by then, and no doubt one of my eyes probably won't work well enough to enjoy it anyways.
So I'm assuming that this requires the source to be supplying the additional content at their 1000hz (or whatever refresh rate) to cover the full range of viewing angles?
So now all we need are video media 1000 times bigger, and graphics chips 1000 times faster to supply the frames.
Yep. Playing off half-assed, poorly engineered/supported features as some sort of strategic miscalculation by the company is utterly silly. May as well be saying that the only reason their products have been doing poorly is because they didn't anticipate their competitors making them look bad.
I'm wondering if a near vacuum would be enough to cause surface level capillaries to burst? Say, for instance, in the eyeballs?
Oh well, having some dead bodies on the Mars surface might be interesting in and of itself to see how well they stay preserved. They could be a museum piece for future Earthling immigrants a thousand years from now.
The method is not complicated, but the practice and implementation of the method when dealing with real world examples in interdisciplinary topics such as the evidence for evolution can be quite complicated (especially for elementary school where there's no groundwork laid yet regarding physics, chemistry, geology, etc.) Students really don't need to question the validity of a theory by attacking it outright, all they need do is ask the teacher a simple series of questions that require further explanation that the teacher is unable to provide in a satisfactory way.
Whether this takes place in a "Science Methodology" class or a "Science History" class really wouldn't change the content, discussion, teachers, or the parents' critical views relating to certain topics being taught.
The problem with this is that the teachers are generally not equipped (educated) sufficiently on any particular science topic to be able to address legitimate questions from the students. Any student that's spent any amount of time digesting anti-Evolution talking points is sufficiently equipped to make your average grade school science teacher look foolish in front of the class. Simple questions are quick and easy to ask, but the answers may require extensive explanation that's either not straight forward, beyond the grade level of the class or even the teacher's own academic level.
Not by taking the gun away. A suicidal person without a gun is still suicidal.
Still suicidal, but less likely to attempt it, and less likely to be successful in it if they do attempt it. If there were an even easier avenue to suicide by way of a 'suicide button' in every home which quickly, painlessly and unfailingly killed the person who pushed it, the suicide rate would go up overall. You wouldn't simply see the gun suicides shift to the 'button' suicides.
There's obviously a big difference in profile for spoilers of a niche/fantasy book that's 13 years old compared to spoilers of a popular mainstream TV show episode that's aired only 2 days ago.
Yep. It means the school will now probably be obligated to double check all the wiring in the room just to cover their butts with respect to electrical code in case of future fire, etc.
And who exactly is supposed to popularize science at the middle-school level when only 5% of said science teachers have *any* post-secondary science education.
Science needs to be popularized from every avenue possible. If that means having a handful of prominent scientists giving up research time to helping steer the next generation towards science, then so be it.
Slashdot Mirror
If people here were coming up with alternate theories that account for all the observations that we presently see that have continually point physicists to the conclusion that there's some substantial non-baryonic mystery component of the universe, then that would be fine. But most of the oh-so insightful wisdom being shed seems to come from people who haven't even bothered to brush up on the wikipedia articles on the topic.
While it's certainly unscientific to shut out alternate theories based solely on the 'authority' of whatever happens to be the prevailing theory of the period, that doesn't mean that repeating the same arguments rooted in absolute ignorance of the topic can be passed off as unclouded wisdom. You think physicists haven't considered that general relativity could be wrong for the last 100 years? Or that there's some deeply seated ideological tether to Einstein that keeps modern physicists from wanting to one-up him? Anyone who could come up with something that unseats general relativity would be a sure bet for a nobel prize, and put themselves in the history books.
Maybe the sort of posts I'm talking about are actually a vocal minority of repeat offenders, but it's still pretty depressing when the signal to noise ratio here about certain science topics is even worse than a place like Reddit. Probably because most of the people in less "nerdy" communities haven't had a childhood of praise of super intelligence for being able to program the family's VCR and power cycle the cable modem to fix the "broken" internet.
...a cosmology news story so a bunch of Slashdot armchair physicists without a lick of physics education past high school can tell the science community they've been doing it wrong for the last 70 years.
It'll probably be 10 seconds of actual video which is then chopped up, played in varying arrangements and speeds, with a healthy dose of scary/ominous music, and then be inter-cut by experts that speak only in 4-5 second chunks, and then commercial breaks of 4 minutes trying to sell me a Honda. A wonderful way to spend an hour.
If only downloading something actually cost the entertainment industry money, I would download 10x as much just out of spite.
January release is for dev kit orders from the website.
December release is for dev kit orders from the kickstarter.
The problem with using those classifications is that it firmly puts every major New Atheist figure, including Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc, under the 'agnostic' umbrella and just about no one under the other. No reasonable person could or would say they're certain there is no god.
It's still about the frames per second, just not the 'average' frames per second over some long arbitrary sample period. The days of showing single figure timedemo-style averages are long gone on most tech websites.
Unless I'm reading the article wrong, all they're doing is recording frame rates via FRAPS and using that to calculate the latency between frames. High frame rate = low latency and vice versa.
They only have the film rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings by way of Saul Zaentz who purchased the rights back in the 70s. I'm pretty sure that the rights to everything outside of those specific books still rests in the hands of the Tolkien estate, and if Christopher Tolkien were going to sell the film rights to the rest of the material, he probably would have done it already (he's gone on record as not being happy with the films, and had to sue New Line in order to get their royalties from the films.)
If they're going to make 3 Tolkien films, New Line/Jackson's hands are pretty much tied to events in and those surrounding The Hobbit.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57477857/study-finds-high-tech-shark-skin-swimsuits-do-not-affect-speed/
What do you think thermal pads, thermal compound, and cooling plates are for?
Paste/pads is to improve surface area contact as surface irregularities in hard metal surfaces introduce air gaps, while thermal interface materials are pliable enough to fill those gaps. In other words, paste is better than air and should really only be having to wet the surfaces and not prevent direct contact where it's possible.
I stand by my point - introducing an extra layer is actually acting as an insulator as the heat is having to transfer through an extra medium and extra imperfect contact points that it otherwise would not have had to. If adding a layer like this improved heat transfer, then adding a dozen or a hundred more should improve it even better (which obviously it does not, because that would be absurd.) To think of it another way, the best possible contact point between two metal surfaces would be to have them be a single piece of metal, which is effectively what you already have without additional shims.
If the shim is actually improving cooling performance somehow it would be due to another reason, such as by introducing additional tension on the retention mechanism of the heatsink, resulting in more force being applied to the CPU.
Why would you want 2 points of contact instead of just 1? The copper shim is technically a thermal insulator in that respect as it stands between your heat source and heat sink (even if the shim were made of diamond, it would still be functioning as an insulator between your source and sink.) The only benefit I could see being provided would be by increasing the compression of whatever spring is used to hold the heatsink down.
:P
If introducing a shim or any sort of additional contact layer actually improved heat transfer, then why not sandwich 5 more shims?
Paste of some kind is extremely important. New retail CPUs with stock heatsinks though usually come with some sort of paste pre-applied onto the base of the heatsink.
Sorry, I wasn't using "1000" to mean a specific amount, it was just a convenient way of asking if the source data would dramatically balloon as there would have to be huge amounts of additional data to support all these unique POVs rather than just a pair of stereo POVs.
I guess basically where I'm coming from is asking myself the question: what is needed in order for a display using this 3D technology to replace the present 3D HDTV implementation while keeping at least a 1080p @ 60hz field per eyeball? What would be needed from Hollywood to produce content that supports this? Would they even be interested in this, considering they can't use this for theater ticket sales, and when they already cheap out by doing quasi-3D post-conversions? For video games? Would each frame have to be completely rendered hundreds of times in order to accurately populate all the potential POVs? Due to the massive amounts of processing overhead, would a game system be likely to support such a technology without a substantial install base? Would that substantial processing be better spent on other features?
This technology just seems to be a lot more substantial than a simple new 3D format. It seems more akin to the jump between SD and HDTV, and would have all the same hiccups and delays. I'll be old and gray by then, and no doubt one of my eyes probably won't work well enough to enjoy it anyways.
So I'm assuming that this requires the source to be supplying the additional content at their 1000hz (or whatever refresh rate) to cover the full range of viewing angles? So now all we need are video media 1000 times bigger, and graphics chips 1000 times faster to supply the frames.
Yep. Playing off half-assed, poorly engineered/supported features as some sort of strategic miscalculation by the company is utterly silly. May as well be saying that the only reason their products have been doing poorly is because they didn't anticipate their competitors making them look bad.
I'm wondering if a near vacuum would be enough to cause surface level capillaries to burst? Say, for instance, in the eyeballs?
Oh well, having some dead bodies on the Mars surface might be interesting in and of itself to see how well they stay preserved. They could be a museum piece for future Earthling immigrants a thousand years from now.
The method is not complicated, but the practice and implementation of the method when dealing with real world examples in interdisciplinary topics such as the evidence for evolution can be quite complicated (especially for elementary school where there's no groundwork laid yet regarding physics, chemistry, geology, etc.) Students really don't need to question the validity of a theory by attacking it outright, all they need do is ask the teacher a simple series of questions that require further explanation that the teacher is unable to provide in a satisfactory way.
Whether this takes place in a "Science Methodology" class or a "Science History" class really wouldn't change the content, discussion, teachers, or the parents' critical views relating to certain topics being taught.
The problem with this is that the teachers are generally not equipped (educated) sufficiently on any particular science topic to be able to address legitimate questions from the students. Any student that's spent any amount of time digesting anti-Evolution talking points is sufficiently equipped to make your average grade school science teacher look foolish in front of the class. Simple questions are quick and easy to ask, but the answers may require extensive explanation that's either not straight forward, beyond the grade level of the class or even the teacher's own academic level.
Not by taking the gun away. A suicidal person without a gun is still suicidal.
Still suicidal, but less likely to attempt it, and less likely to be successful in it if they do attempt it. If there were an even easier avenue to suicide by way of a 'suicide button' in every home which quickly, painlessly and unfailingly killed the person who pushed it, the suicide rate would go up overall. You wouldn't simply see the gun suicides shift to the 'button' suicides.
There's obviously a big difference in profile for spoilers of a niche/fantasy book that's 13 years old compared to spoilers of a popular mainstream TV show episode that's aired only 2 days ago.
neuroplasticity
Yep. It means the school will now probably be obligated to double check all the wiring in the room just to cover their butts with respect to electrical code in case of future fire, etc.
Pardon me, it's 'less than 10% have any physical science major or certification.'
And who exactly is supposed to popularize science at the middle-school level when only 5% of said science teachers have *any* post-secondary science education. Science needs to be popularized from every avenue possible. If that means having a handful of prominent scientists giving up research time to helping steer the next generation towards science, then so be it.