Adobe's PDF reader (which is now unnecessary, since there are good alternatives)
Name one that supports Adobe PDF layer features. I have several PDF's that utilize Adobe's PDF so that the output can be quickly and easily customized.
And don't bother telling me to not use such PDF's in the first place... that sort of hand-waving hardly addresses my point.
Peculiar... you ask for citation, and then go on to provide the exact information were apparently asking for yourself. The second link you referred to suggested that we can actually resolve contrasting detail as small as 10 arc-seconds, in spite of the cones being 20 arc-seconds apart. 20 arc-seconds is a third of an arc-minute, which is what I had suggested could ordinarily be resolved by a healthy eye, and 10 arc-seconds will surpass the Nyquist limit for that level of resolving detail, making such fine detail truly indistingushable. This is pretty much what I was actually saying.
As for how good my eyes are, they are horrible... I've been wearing glasses for almost 4 decades. However, my near-vision is still very good, and I can *easily* discern individual pixels on my iPhone 4 (and I know they are individual pixels because I've seen them in images that I made myself).
... if they discover what they believe might be a vulnerability in somebody else's software, perhaps not deliberately trying to do so, what do they do? I mean, the only thing that would actually qualify as proof of a real vulnerability is if they downloaded something they weren't supposed to, which might require actually trying to do, but at the same time it would be illegal to attempt to do so. What is a person really supposed to do?
1/3 of an arc MINUTE, sorry... not second. cripes, 1/3 of an arc second is completely impossible, since the sizes involved are smaller than the rod and cone cells in the actual retina itself. I meant to say 1/3 of an arc minute (which is 20 arc-seconds).
I think the normal operating distance of an iPad is between 12 and 14 inches
At 12 to 14", 1/3 of an arc second is between 30 to 35 microns, which would mean to pass the Nyquist limit, the pixels would have to be no more than 18 microns in size. This would mean that the resolution still needs to improve by about a factor of 4 so that it is better than the finest detail our eyes can actually resolve, which places the perfect display (at iPad screen sizes) at 8192x6144 pixels.
Anyway my point wasn't that this new display achieved this goal but that it moved toward it
Definitely. I'm in full agreement with on that one, and as I said... they are now at least within an order of magnitude of achieving it, so they are pretty darn close. Assuming that resolution improvements continue to happen at the rate we've seen so far, I expect we'll be seeing commercially viable *TRUE* retina displays before the end of the decade.
A *healthy* human eye can resolve details approximately 1/3 of an arc minute across. At about 8" of distance, that works out to about 20 microns in size. The iPad3 has pixels that are about 80 microns in size. At 4 feet, you could not discern the individual pixels on an iPad3, but at typical iPad viewing distances, a person with healthy eyes almost certainly could. To pass the Nyquist limit for the resolution of the eyes, the display would have to use pixels that are actually no more than about 10 microns in size (15 microns if viewed from about 12")... so they still have to improve by a factor of about 6 to 8 to be completely indiscernible.
I was, perhaps, guilty of understating my point by suggesting that such a proof would merely be "adequate". Irrefutable would be a more correct term.
My point was that the terms I was using in the premise had sufficiently narrowly defined scopes that direct observation would prove that the proposed notion was false. The only way you could introduce doubt into it is by redefining the terms, which alters the original premise.
Proving that something does not exist always requires a precise definition of a maximum domain of searchability - which is almost automatic in mathematics... but can sometimes be applied outside that domain.
Of course, the original point didn't suggest that one should exclude mathematics when stating that one can't prove a negative - it simply asserted, without qualification, that proving a negative was impossible.
... ironically, is that soldiers will not be risking their lives in the field of combat.
Not that I am advocating soldiers dying per se, but if a cause is not worth dying for, then why is it worth going to war for in the first place? If one is prepared to kill their fellow man for whatever cause they might believe in, however true, and however noble, and however right, but they themselves are not prepared to die in the name of that same cause, then their so-called virtuous beliefs are nothing but hollow claims.
Nothing of any real worth or value has ever been achieved without making some sacrifice... and it is the virtue of the people who *have* made such sacrifices that gives us that much more a profound appreciation for the victory that was gained by it.
Take that away, and war becomes just a pointless exercise in killing... without purpose, and maybe even without end.
You might find that there is much in the world that we have agreed upon and have a logical basis...
For example, I can prove that what one must scientifically conclude is my own physical body is not, at least at the moment in time as I type this, encased in concrete. No math involved in that whatsoever.
Because what science concludes is a person's physical body is reasonably well defined, as is is the concept of a moment in time, and what "encased in concrete" would entail, the absence of concrete around my body merits entirely adequate proof of that negative.
One might conclude that what I think is my physical may not be, or perhaps redefining concrete to refer to some insubstantial material that cannot be directly perceived, but owing to the lack of scientific evidence in such regards, this is arbitrarily changing the scope of the original premise.
For example, take the premise of trying to find two positive numbers whose sum is less than either number. It can trivially be proven that no such pair of positive numbers exist, effectively proving a negative.
When the domain of what you are trying to find is restricted enough, you can indeed disprove the existence of something. It does not disprove the existence outside of that domain, of course... but then that is, even at best, an entirely different supposition.
In my experience, it's fairly common these days for new vehicles to come with some technology in the ignition system that makes it virtually impossible to hot wire.... and even if they succeeded, without having the right wireless chip nearby to talk to that is installed in the head of the keys that would normally be in the ignition, the steering column will not unlock, and the car will not shift out of park. With the key absent, the engine would automatically shut off after a certain period without the key installed, just as it would if a remote-start had been issued.
Outside of having a tow truck, and simply carting it away, how do you propose to steal a vehicle that can't be driven without a key?
... that the child was simply telling a fib to her mother? And that she merely exploited the fact that such checkups on lunches exist to score herself some chicken nuggets (which is evidently what she had offered to her) from the cafeteria?
Okay... I know she's only 5, and someone with such little life experience is probably not going to be devious enough to outsmart an adult... but just think about it for a moment. The school claims no knowledge of the incident. Really, if the school wants to cover its butt, they should give the child a receipt or something that explicitly acknowledges that the child's lunch was inspected and it did not satisfy their criteria... with a verifiable paper trail, the school really couldn't claim no knowledge of the incident
I expect it's also why, to the best of my understanding, any time genetic modification to slow the rate at which telomeres shrink in lab mammals (a trait called negligible senescence, which is known to exist in certain types of turtles and lobsters), the end result has always been cancer.
I think it's more the 30 minutes after her death was announced than it was simply the idea of raising the price of an artists work after their death.
It's normal that the prices of works should rise after the artists death, but in keeping with good taste, that should probably happen as people who cared for the person have come to accept the loss, not before they have barely had time to have even processed the news.
If you really want a timeline that would have been much appropriate, this kind of price increase should probably have been delayed by about 4 to 6 months... ultimately, however, it would have to be played by ear to see how the emotional climate was surrounding her death. Basically, once things simmer down, it would probably have been acceptable to raise the prices the way they did.
.... I highly doubt it would do anything to resolve any actual obesity.
I've made a point of exercising a lot lately... and I've found that my endurance has gone up considerably since I started, but I'm just as fat as I ever was. At least I'm not gaining any more weight... still undesirably obese though.
Well, if they are hearing the sound at the time, then no... I'm afraid I don't think that's a big a deal. The electrical signals transmitted from the eardrum to the brain would naturally have a pretty tight correspondence with the sound waves received, and I would naturally expect that electrical activity in the brain corresponding to regions associated with hearing would be similarly correspondent. The breakthrough will happen when they can construct the sound directly from what they are thinking, and not simply actually hearing with their ears.
Hey, I'm not dissing finding out more about how the brain works.... but being able to detect what a person hears is really no more complicated than putting a microphone near that person.
Slashdot Mirror
Name one that supports Adobe PDF layer features. I have several PDF's that utilize Adobe's PDF so that the output can be quickly and easily customized.
And don't bother telling me to not use such PDF's in the first place... that sort of hand-waving hardly addresses my point.
Peculiar... you ask for citation, and then go on to provide the exact information were apparently asking for yourself. The second link you referred to suggested that we can actually resolve contrasting detail as small as 10 arc-seconds, in spite of the cones being 20 arc-seconds apart. 20 arc-seconds is a third of an arc-minute, which is what I had suggested could ordinarily be resolved by a healthy eye, and 10 arc-seconds will surpass the Nyquist limit for that level of resolving detail, making such fine detail truly indistingushable. This is pretty much what I was actually saying.
As for how good my eyes are, they are horrible... I've been wearing glasses for almost 4 decades. However, my near-vision is still very good, and I can *easily* discern individual pixels on my iPhone 4 (and I know they are individual pixels because I've seen them in images that I made myself).
... if they discover what they believe might be a vulnerability in somebody else's software, perhaps not deliberately trying to do so, what do they do? I mean, the only thing that would actually qualify as proof of a real vulnerability is if they downloaded something they weren't supposed to, which might require actually trying to do, but at the same time it would be illegal to attempt to do so. What is a person really supposed to do?
First I'm making stupid typo's... then I apparently hit "post" instead of "reply". Can I please restart this day?
1/3 of an arc MINUTE, sorry... not second. cripes, 1/3 of an arc second is completely impossible, since the sizes involved are smaller than the rod and cone cells in the actual retina itself. I meant to say 1/3 of an arc minute (which is 20 arc-seconds).
At 12 to 14", 1/3 of an arc second is between 30 to 35 microns, which would mean to pass the Nyquist limit, the pixels would have to be no more than 18 microns in size. This would mean that the resolution still needs to improve by about a factor of 4 so that it is better than the finest detail our eyes can actually resolve, which places the perfect display (at iPad screen sizes) at 8192x6144 pixels.
Definitely. I'm in full agreement with on that one, and as I said... they are now at least within an order of magnitude of achieving it, so they are pretty darn close. Assuming that resolution improvements continue to happen at the rate we've seen so far, I expect we'll be seeing commercially viable *TRUE* retina displays before the end of the decade.
Well, they at least within an order of magnitude.
A *healthy* human eye can resolve details approximately 1/3 of an arc minute across. At about 8" of distance, that works out to about 20 microns in size. The iPad3 has pixels that are about 80 microns in size. At 4 feet, you could not discern the individual pixels on an iPad3, but at typical iPad viewing distances, a person with healthy eyes almost certainly could. To pass the Nyquist limit for the resolution of the eyes, the display would have to use pixels that are actually no more than about 10 microns in size (15 microns if viewed from about 12")... so they still have to improve by a factor of about 6 to 8 to be completely indiscernible.
I was, perhaps, guilty of understating my point by suggesting that such a proof would merely be "adequate". Irrefutable would be a more correct term.
My point was that the terms I was using in the premise had sufficiently narrowly defined scopes that direct observation would prove that the proposed notion was false. The only way you could introduce doubt into it is by redefining the terms, which alters the original premise.
Proving that something does not exist always requires a precise definition of a maximum domain of searchability - which is almost automatic in mathematics... but can sometimes be applied outside that domain.
Of course, the original point didn't suggest that one should exclude mathematics when stating that one can't prove a negative - it simply asserted, without qualification, that proving a negative was impossible.
Not that I am advocating soldiers dying per se, but if a cause is not worth dying for, then why is it worth going to war for in the first place? If one is prepared to kill their fellow man for whatever cause they might believe in, however true, and however noble, and however right, but they themselves are not prepared to die in the name of that same cause, then their so-called virtuous beliefs are nothing but hollow claims.
Nothing of any real worth or value has ever been achieved without making some sacrifice... and it is the virtue of the people who *have* made such sacrifices that gives us that much more a profound appreciation for the victory that was gained by it.
Take that away, and war becomes just a pointless exercise in killing... without purpose, and maybe even without end.
This is a bad idea.
You might find that there is much in the world that we have agreed upon and have a logical basis...
For example, I can prove that what one must scientifically conclude is my own physical body is not, at least at the moment in time as I type this, encased in concrete. No math involved in that whatsoever.
Because what science concludes is a person's physical body is reasonably well defined, as is is the concept of a moment in time, and what "encased in concrete" would entail, the absence of concrete around my body merits entirely adequate proof of that negative.
One might conclude that what I think is my physical may not be, or perhaps redefining concrete to refer to some insubstantial material that cannot be directly perceived, but owing to the lack of scientific evidence in such regards, this is arbitrarily changing the scope of the original premise.
This is false. Quite provably so, in fact.
For example, take the premise of trying to find two positive numbers whose sum is less than either number. It can trivially be proven that no such pair of positive numbers exist, effectively proving a negative.
When the domain of what you are trying to find is restricted enough, you can indeed disprove the existence of something. It does not disprove the existence outside of that domain, of course... but then that is, even at best, an entirely different supposition.
In my experience, it's fairly common these days for new vehicles to come with some technology in the ignition system that makes it virtually impossible to hot wire.... and even if they succeeded, without having the right wireless chip nearby to talk to that is installed in the head of the keys that would normally be in the ignition, the steering column will not unlock, and the car will not shift out of park. With the key absent, the engine would automatically shut off after a certain period without the key installed, just as it would if a remote-start had been issued.
Outside of having a tow truck, and simply carting it away, how do you propose to steal a vehicle that can't be driven without a key?
Naaah... it wouldn't get to that point. Most people don't have a given car as long as 13 years.
Okay... I know she's only 5, and someone with such little life experience is probably not going to be devious enough to outsmart an adult... but just think about it for a moment. The school claims no knowledge of the incident. Really, if the school wants to cover its butt, they should give the child a receipt or something that explicitly acknowledges that the child's lunch was inspected and it did not satisfy their criteria... with a verifiable paper trail, the school really couldn't claim no knowledge of the incident
I expect it's also why, to the best of my understanding, any time genetic modification to slow the rate at which telomeres shrink in lab mammals (a trait called negligible senescence, which is known to exist in certain types of turtles and lobsters), the end result has always been cancer.
Of approximately the same degree of bad taste as asking the widow of a person out on a date at the man's funeral.
I think it's more the 30 minutes after her death was announced than it was simply the idea of raising the price of an artists work after their death.
It's normal that the prices of works should rise after the artists death, but in keeping with good taste, that should probably happen as people who cared for the person have come to accept the loss, not before they have barely had time to have even processed the news.
If you really want a timeline that would have been much appropriate, this kind of price increase should probably have been delayed by about 4 to 6 months... ultimately, however, it would have to be played by ear to see how the emotional climate was surrounding her death. Basically, once things simmer down, it would probably have been acceptable to raise the prices the way they did.
I've made a point of exercising a lot lately... and I've found that my endurance has gone up considerably since I started, but I'm just as fat as I ever was. At least I'm not gaining any more weight... still undesirably obese though.
Well, if they are hearing the sound at the time, then no... I'm afraid I don't think that's a big a deal. The electrical signals transmitted from the eardrum to the brain would naturally have a pretty tight correspondence with the sound waves received, and I would naturally expect that electrical activity in the brain corresponding to regions associated with hearing would be similarly correspondent. The breakthrough will happen when they can construct the sound directly from what they are thinking, and not simply actually hearing with their ears.
While this has been postulated before, to the best of my knowledge, this premise has yet to be conclusively proven.
Of course, being able to determine what words people are thinking of is a *HUGE* deal... and one that has almost frightening consequences.
Yes. *THAT* would be revolutionary.
Also, pretty scary, if you think about the possible ways such technology could be abused.
Hey, I'm not dissing finding out more about how the brain works.... but being able to detect what a person hears is really no more complicated than putting a microphone near that person.
Because a microphone that is on a person's body is going to pick up everything that person hears as well.
And for that matter, it will probably be loads more reliable than trying to decode electrical signals that we are only just beginning to comprehend.
That the electrical signals received by the brain from the ear would actually directly correspond to the actual soundwaves received by the ear...
I'm sorry... but in what way is this any more revolutionary in discovery than the telephone?
Then it's not a specific support tech that will work with you for as long as you own the computer, is it?