Use the high-frame-rate camera to take a high-frame-rate video, or use it to take a high resolution picture, but you cant take a high-frame-rate high-resolution video.
Well, I was working on an in-depth reply on where I think you went wrong, but it really just came down to two simple things:
1. EVIDENCE IS NOT PROOF - they cannot be used interchangeably. Evidence suggests (and supports) that something may be true, while proof, uh, proves that it is true.
2. Please don't be so offended by analogies. An analogy (the way I was using it) is a communication tool to help you understand my argument from a different context. I wasn't trying to use the analogy to prove anything, only to expand on what I was saying. All analogies break down at some point, but that doesn't make them bad analogies. In this case, the analogy was used only to demonstrate another example of "If X is evidence of Y, then X suggests Y, but does not prove Y. Reading any more into my analogy than that simple logic is incorrect use of the analogy and your ridiculous arguments against the analogy only reflect poorly on you. I apologize for the car analogy, though. I know they are looked down on around here, but it was the first example that came to my mind. There are certainly plenty of other examples of the same "evidence vs. proof" logic, such as wet grass being evidence (but not proof) that it rained.
Depending on your understanding of #1, your ideas may have some merit, but it'll turn into a longer discussion and I'm not really that interested in spending more time on this topic, so I'll just say...
Have a nice day, and thanks for your time.
[2] Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion": "Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent, rational mind"
Which ironically is a rather delusional and self-contradicting remark. If the remark really is true, doctors should just convince people with unhealthy minds to be atheists and voila they'll have healthy, independent, rational minds.
Your comment makes no sense. Do you not know what "evidence" means, or do you not understand the basic logic behind the statement? He said that one is evidence of the other, not that you can't have one without the other, and he certainly didn't say (or even imply) that atheism causes minds to be independent and rational. Evidence is also not the same thing as proof.
Driving a Lamborghini is evidence of being rich, so does that mean that if you get somebody to drive a Lamborghini it'll cause them to be rich? No, driving a Lamborghini is something that can result from being rich, just as Dawkins was implying that atheism is something that can result from having an independent, rational mind.
Turn an unhealthy mind into a healthy, independent, rational mind and they might turn into an atheist, but it doesn't work the other way.
I was up in Fargo, ND visiting family for Christmas (yah shoor ya betcha) and a traffic light was out on a 6-lane intersection. Guess what? Everyone was calmly proceeding as if it was a 4-way stop. No drama, no retardation.
That's fine if the light is out in all four directions. It's a completely different story if it's only out in *one* of the four directions.
Consider this situation... This is hypothetical but entirely possible, and *every intersection and driving situation is different in some way*, so please don't be so quick to judge with limited knowledge of what actually happened. It's entirely possible to do everything right and still get into an accident.
Hypothetical situation: The side that is covered in snow has a red light, and the cross traffic has a green light. Perhaps this is at an intersection where the traffic lights were installed specifically because it is a difficult and low-visibility intersection. The traffic with the green light may assume everything is normal with the lights and may be traveling *at full speed*. A car on the "red" side treats it as a 4-way-stop situation, stops at the light, looks and doesn't see any traffic, and then goes. Remember that if it's a limited visibility intersection and the cross traffic is going full speed (and is therefore some distance away from the intersection when the "red" car commits to going through the intersection), it's certainly possible that this driver could not possibly see the other car coming before it's too late. Also consider that it recently snowed (or is still snowing), meaning the road is likely to be extremely slippery. Even after the two cars see each other, the "green" car will have difficulty slowing down sufficiently to avoid hitting the "red" car.
I think this is a fairly realistic and possible situation, and in such a situation, the "green" car that had full visibility to the lights would be more to blame than the "red" car that can't clearly see the lights. Obviously the "green" car would have now real way of knowing something was wrong with the lights on the other side, but in such a situation (recent snow, slippery roads, etc.), they drive slower and more cautiously as they approach intersections.
On your comment about making sure the other guy will yield, it's entirely possible that at the time you're starting to go through the intersection, there might not even be "another guy" to consider until you're already in the middle of the intersection, if the "other guy" is driving at full speed.
Posessive pronouns consistently don't have apostrophes: he/him -- his (not he's, him's or hi's) she/her -- hers (not she's or her's) they/them -- theirs (not they's, them's or their's) we/us -- ours (not we's, us's, or our's) it/it -- its (not it's)
If it's truly a typo, sure I can forgive it. But I believe that most of the time it's not a typo or being in a hurry, it's simply not knowing what's correct. Most people who make such a mistake probably wouldn't be embarrased when it's pointed out because they don't even realize it's wrong.
People who use the "language evolves" excuse for their own lack of language skills don't understand that the evolution of language refers to the rules of the language changing over time (in terms of human generations - the rules I learned in school are a bit different than the ones my grandparents learned). It does not mean that you can ignore the current rules. The current rules are the current rules and until they change at some point in time, they still apply.
The word "ironic" for many people has come to mean nothing more than "weird" or to refer to a coincidence (e.g., "How ironic, I was there, too!"). I've heard the "language evolves" excuse for that, too. If the word "ironic" actually changes definition (evolves) to mean "weird", how am I supposed to describe something that actually *is* ironic? (just an example -- I don't really need an answer to that)
Literacy may seem worse, but only because we're frequently exposed to the productions of people who would otherwise rarely write anything for others to read.
I think that that actually causes writing quality to decline, simply because what you read makes its way into what you write. If you read a bunch of amateur writing, that's what you learn. I've heard it said that people who read a lot are also good writers, but I think that only makes sense if you read good writing.
In the past, most of what you read was professionally written and proofread. You would mostly see correct use of the language and would learn from it. Now, just about anybody can write and "publish" anything they want without any proofreading or understanding of proper use of the language. Since so much of what we read these days is this amateur writing, we are constantly exposed to bad writing (not to say that amateur=bad, it's just that you get everything, good and bad), which I think affects the way we write.
One thing I notice very frequently is the lack of understanding of the difference between "its" and "it's" and other apostrophe abuse. People seem to think that anytime a word ends with "s" you're supposed to use an apostrophe. The word "it's" is (mis)used so frequently in amateur writing as a possessive word that it almost seems odd to see "its" used correctly.
To make it worse, I've seen bad english make its way into supposedly professional writing and things like business names and signs/logos. Imagine a business named "Tire's Plus" (to give a semi-fictional example). What? There's a plus that belongs to tire? Or is that supposed to mean "Tire Is Plus"?
I used to say the same thing about email. Before email was common, nobody talked about sending "a mail". But somehow it has become common practice (perhaps acceptable?) to use the word "email" as a countable noun.
Hardly. More like, if people prefer B they are "only half right" and should be using style C instead. And C is a defective style since it (obviously) impedes editing. Therefor A is a better style than B.
Actually, I would replace that last line with "If you don't like the editing issue of C, then go ahead and stick with B. I don't care." I was never trying to say that A is better than B. You don't seem to understand that.
You keep talking about bogus, false and "retarded" arguments as if I'm trying to debate against your opinion. You seem to miss the point entirely.
But you must know that your argument is retarded, right?
Even with you starting out with a comment like that, I'll try to take you seriously...
You are saying that if something is good then twice as much is better.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Perhaps that's how your interpreted it, but I'm not saying "more, more, more!" (I'm actually more of the opinion that that one or two lines shouldn't really be such a big issue). I'm just suggesting that it looks like a lack of consistency between the use of the open brace and the close brace. I'm also saying that if that one small line is so important, then that other basically wasted line should be a consideration for those people as well, unless there is a good reason for it to have its own line (see below).
Let alone that being a false argument,
What makes it a false argument? Pointing out that people aren't following their own reasoning is a false argument? Ok...
but the opening brace and the closing brace aren't even equivalent in the first place.
Putting the opening brace on the same line has few if any drawbacks,
It does have at least one drawback: readability. That's why some people prefer to put it on its own line. If you disagree about the readability thing, fine, but some do see it as a drawback to putting the open brace on the end of the previous line.
but putting the closing brace on the last line has drawbacks, such as the inability to add a later statement without moving the brace between lines, adding a properly scoped// NOT REACHED comment, or other things people do.
This is a good point. Of course, adding a line and moving the brace is not that difficult, but it is some extra effort that is avoided by putting the close brace on its own line. If that outweighs the vertical spacing issue, I'll accept that.
The fact that you would propose such a ridiculous argument tells me that you know that opening braces on their own line is at best a style choice with drawbacks,
Well of course, ALL styles have drawbacks and advantages, and different people have different priorities about those advantages and disadvantages.
and that you are defensive about it and need to rationalize it. In other words, you know K&R is a more efficient style yet you would rather tear it down with false arguments than adopt it...
No, you completely misunderstood me. I was absolutely not defensive about it or trying to rationalize it. In fact, I tried to say very little about which style is better. If you say K&R is more efficient, I was suggesting a way to make it even more efficient, or whatever.
Here's a way to look at what I was saying: For purposes of this discussion, say there are two styles: A and B. Some prefer A, some prefer B. I use A, you use B. I will continue to use A for whatever reasons I choose, but if you choose to use B, here is a suggestion on how you might optimize your use of style B, using the very reasoning that leads you to use B in the first place.
what does that say about you as a programmer?
Ok, I apologize for taking this quote out of context, but what it says about me is that I try to be helpful. Perhaps you thought I was being sarcastic or something. I wasn't saying your style is worse because of some slippery-slope argument. I actually recognize that people have their preferences for whatever reasons they have. I was genuinely offering a suggestion on how to improve a coding style I don't use just because I didn't understand the inconsistency in the style. You did point out a problem with my suggestion, but as I said before, all styles have advantages and disadvantages. It's up to you to decide which ones are important to you.
I prefer vertically aligning open and close braces, too. I was just making a point that the people who do the same-line open brace and use the vertical-space argument are only getting it half right. If the one line from the open brace is that important, they should also be doing something about the wasted line from the close brace.
If you aren't going to line up the braces, get them out of the way and just use indentation for visual identification of blocks. If you are going to use one brace for a visual aid, use both of them and make them at least look like they are associated with each other (by aligning them vertically).
In my example, I get rid of the idea of pretending to use one brace for a visual aid and instead use only indentation. Some say the beginning of a block can be seen by the increased indentation. Can the end of a block not also be seen by the decreased indentation as you back out a level? The braces are there only because the syntax requires them. They are out of the way because they aren't being used for any human-readability.
Having said all that, I still prefer keeping the braces out there where I can see them.
Funny thing is, I get a lot more paper spam than email spam. From where I stand, paper spam is a worse problem. It certainly kills a lot more trees. And I can't set up a filter for my paper spam. Sure you can:
Sign up for the Direct Marketing Association do-not-mail list at http://www.dmaconsumers.org/ and opt out of credit card and insurance offers at http://www.optoutprescreen.com/ . It takes several months to see the effects, but these days the only mail I get is some of the local advertisements with no mailing label ("To Postal Customer") and stuff that is actually for me.
I think it's also worth noting that all of the braking calculations I've seen here assume that if you need to apply maximum braking power, you will do so immediately after reaction time. However, when the car in front of you begins to slow down, it is not always clear just how hard you need to press your brakes to avoid a collision. Depth perception is good, but at the distances we are dealing with, it is not that good (ever hear of people getting hit by trains going signficantly faster than they thought?).
I've had one or two times when I've been very glad that I use some sense with following distance. The thought process in these situations is something like this: "OK, I need to slow down now...... Oh, I really need to slow down now!"
I sure hope people aren't locking up their brakes (or engaging ABS) every time they see brake lights in front of them.
They would take a freeze frame of a great catch or similar play from a couple different angles, then use the frames to construct a rough 3-D model of the instant.
Not quite. This was actually done with an array of spacially synchronized cameras around the stadium, so when they flew around a freeze-frame, it was actually showing the view as seen from each of these cameras. Take a look at how they did "bullet time" on "The Matrix." What you saw on the Super Bowl was a crude semi-live version of this.
Re:What's nice about the 1st 6 from aviation notat
on
Eleventy What?
·
· Score: 1
Uh, sorry I don't see anything sarcastic there. Seriously. Don't you think that could have been an entirely straighforward conversation with no sarcasm. But this is Slashdot, we couldn't have that.
Re:What's nice about the 1st 6 from aviation notat
on
Eleventy What?
·
· Score: 1
Hmm... Heads up indeed. Or perhaps eyes up. He did mention "aviation notation" in the subject line. But that's why I don't like it when people make the subject line the beginning of the first sentence of their post, then continuing it in the actual body. It makes it a bit confusing because it's so easy to skip past the subject line and get to the meat of the post. The subject line should be a reference to the body, but the body should be able to stand on its own.
This is similar to Superlink, but this relies on wired technology. It's cool for the coolness factor, but things like Superlink could become critical forms of semi-long-range communication when internet and telephone lines get destroyed in a major disaster, for example. Yes, there is HF as well, but these days VHF is probably a lot more common, and so quite important for emergency communications.
Yes, in fact I've taken enough physics courses to know that very often there's often more at play than just what they teach you in a high school physics class. I'm sure most high school physics classes don't take air resistance into account for newtonian physics calculations (mine didn't), but it most certainly does have a measurable impact in real life. It isn't discussed because it adds a whole new layer of complexity.
I've taken enough physics to know that there is alot that I don't know about physics (and for good reason, too), and to realize that the spin of large bodies very well may have an effect on their relative movement, but the topic was not discussed to eliminate the extra layer of complexity that is unnecessary for non-physics majors. In fact, other forces could also be at play here (contrary to what you say). One I can think of now is magnetic fields. But I make no claims about that. Just showing that other forces can indeed affect something like this.
Oh, yeah... You're right. I'm an idiot because I know something you don't know, I come to a news site expecting to find a hint of news, I show a slight bit more of an attempt at being polite and providing useful information than half the other slashdot posters, and I don't hide behind anonymity to insult someone I know nothing about. I apologize for my inexcusable behavior. It won't happen again.
My understanding of this is that it has to do with the fact that the moon rotates the same direction that it revolves around Earth. In cases where a moon revolves and rotates in opposite directions, it gets closer. Of course, I don't know why. It's just what I heard about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Use the high-frame-rate camera to take a high-frame-rate video, or use it to take a high resolution picture, but you cant take a high-frame-rate high-resolution video.
So it's the Heisenberg Photography Principle?
1. EVIDENCE IS NOT PROOF - they cannot be used interchangeably. Evidence suggests (and supports) that something may be true, while proof, uh, proves that it is true.
2. Please don't be so offended by analogies. An analogy (the way I was using it) is a communication tool to help you understand my argument from a different context. I wasn't trying to use the analogy to prove anything, only to expand on what I was saying. All analogies break down at some point, but that doesn't make them bad analogies. In this case, the analogy was used only to demonstrate another example of "If X is evidence of Y, then X suggests Y, but does not prove Y. Reading any more into my analogy than that simple logic is incorrect use of the analogy and your ridiculous arguments against the analogy only reflect poorly on you. I apologize for the car analogy, though. I know they are looked down on around here, but it was the first example that came to my mind. There are certainly plenty of other examples of the same "evidence vs. proof" logic, such as wet grass being evidence (but not proof) that it rained.
Depending on your understanding of #1, your ideas may have some merit, but it'll turn into a longer discussion and I'm not really that interested in spending more time on this topic, so I'll just say... Have a nice day, and thanks for your time.
[2] Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion": "Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent, rational mind"
Which ironically is a rather delusional and self-contradicting remark. If the remark really is true, doctors should just convince people with unhealthy minds to be atheists and voila they'll have healthy, independent, rational minds.
Your comment makes no sense. Do you not know what "evidence" means, or do you not understand the basic logic behind the statement? He said that one is evidence of the other, not that you can't have one without the other, and he certainly didn't say (or even imply) that atheism causes minds to be independent and rational. Evidence is also not the same thing as proof.
Driving a Lamborghini is evidence of being rich, so does that mean that if you get somebody to drive a Lamborghini it'll cause them to be rich? No, driving a Lamborghini is something that can result from being rich, just as Dawkins was implying that atheism is something that can result from having an independent, rational mind.
Turn an unhealthy mind into a healthy, independent, rational mind and they might turn into an atheist, but it doesn't work the other way.
I was up in Fargo, ND visiting family for Christmas (yah shoor ya betcha) and a traffic light was out on a 6-lane intersection. Guess what? Everyone was calmly proceeding as if it was a 4-way stop. No drama, no retardation.
That's fine if the light is out in all four directions. It's a completely different story if it's only out in *one* of the four directions.
Consider this situation... This is hypothetical but entirely possible, and *every intersection and driving situation is different in some way*, so please don't be so quick to judge with limited knowledge of what actually happened. It's entirely possible to do everything right and still get into an accident.
Hypothetical situation:
The side that is covered in snow has a red light, and the cross traffic has a green light. Perhaps this is at an intersection where the traffic lights were installed specifically because it is a difficult and low-visibility intersection. The traffic with the green light may assume everything is normal with the lights and may be traveling *at full speed*. A car on the "red" side treats it as a 4-way-stop situation, stops at the light, looks and doesn't see any traffic, and then goes. Remember that if it's a limited visibility intersection and the cross traffic is going full speed (and is therefore some distance away from the intersection when the "red" car commits to going through the intersection), it's certainly possible that this driver could not possibly see the other car coming before it's too late. Also consider that it recently snowed (or is still snowing), meaning the road is likely to be extremely slippery. Even after the two cars see each other, the "green" car will have difficulty slowing down sufficiently to avoid hitting the "red" car.
I think this is a fairly realistic and possible situation, and in such a situation, the "green" car that had full visibility to the lights would be more to blame than the "red" car that can't clearly see the lights. Obviously the "green" car would have now real way of knowing something was wrong with the lights on the other side, but in such a situation (recent snow, slippery roads, etc.), they drive slower and more cautiously as they approach intersections.
On your comment about making sure the other guy will yield, it's entirely possible that at the time you're starting to go through the intersection, there might not even be "another guy" to consider until you're already in the middle of the intersection, if the "other guy" is driving at full speed.
Posessive pronouns consistently don't have apostrophes:
he/him -- his (not he's, him's or hi's)
she/her -- hers (not she's or her's)
they/them -- theirs (not they's, them's or their's)
we/us -- ours (not we's, us's, or our's)
it/it -- its (not it's)
If it's truly a typo, sure I can forgive it. But I believe that most of the time it's not a typo or being in a hurry, it's simply not knowing what's correct. Most people who make such a mistake probably wouldn't be embarrased when it's pointed out because they don't even realize it's wrong.
People who use the "language evolves" excuse for their own lack of language skills don't understand that the evolution of language refers to the rules of the language changing over time (in terms of human generations - the rules I learned in school are a bit different than the ones my grandparents learned). It does not mean that you can ignore the current rules. The current rules are the current rules and until they change at some point in time, they still apply.
The word "ironic" for many people has come to mean nothing more than "weird" or to refer to a coincidence (e.g., "How ironic, I was there, too!"). I've heard the "language evolves" excuse for that, too. If the word "ironic" actually changes definition (evolves) to mean "weird", how am I supposed to describe something that actually *is* ironic? (just an example -- I don't really need an answer to that)
Literacy may seem worse, but only because we're frequently exposed to the productions of people who would otherwise rarely write anything for others to read.
I think that that actually causes writing quality to decline, simply because what you read makes its way into what you write. If you read a bunch of amateur writing, that's what you learn. I've heard it said that people who read a lot are also good writers, but I think that only makes sense if you read good writing.
In the past, most of what you read was professionally written and proofread. You would mostly see correct use of the language and would learn from it. Now, just about anybody can write and "publish" anything they want without any proofreading or understanding of proper use of the language. Since so much of what we read these days is this amateur writing, we are constantly exposed to bad writing (not to say that amateur=bad, it's just that you get everything, good and bad), which I think affects the way we write.
One thing I notice very frequently is the lack of understanding of the difference between "its" and "it's" and other apostrophe abuse. People seem to think that anytime a word ends with "s" you're supposed to use an apostrophe. The word "it's" is (mis)used so frequently in amateur writing as a possessive word that it almost seems odd to see "its" used correctly.
To make it worse, I've seen bad english make its way into supposedly professional writing and things like business names and signs/logos. Imagine a business named "Tire's Plus" (to give a semi-fictional example). What? There's a plus that belongs to tire? Or is that supposed to mean "Tire Is Plus"?
I used to say the same thing about email. Before email was common, nobody talked about sending "a mail". But somehow it has become common practice (perhaps acceptable?) to use the word "email" as a countable noun.
The memory could not be "read".
What are the quotes for?
Hardly. More like, if people prefer B they are "only half right" and should be using style C instead. And C is a defective style since it (obviously) impedes editing. Therefor A is a better style than B.
Actually, I would replace that last line with "If you don't like the editing issue of C, then go ahead and stick with B. I don't care." I was never trying to say that A is better than B. You don't seem to understand that.
You keep talking about bogus, false and "retarded" arguments as if I'm trying to debate against your opinion. You seem to miss the point entirely.
But you must know that your argument is retarded, right?
Even with you starting out with a comment like that, I'll try to take you seriously...
You are saying that if something is good then twice as much is better.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Perhaps that's how your interpreted it, but I'm not saying "more, more, more!" (I'm actually more of the opinion that that one or two lines shouldn't really be such a big issue). I'm just suggesting that it looks like a lack of consistency between the use of the open brace and the close brace. I'm also saying that if that one small line is so important, then that other basically wasted line should be a consideration for those people as well, unless there is a good reason for it to have its own line (see below).
Let alone that being a false argument,
What makes it a false argument? Pointing out that people aren't following their own reasoning is a false argument? Ok...
but the opening brace and the closing brace aren't even equivalent in the first place.
Putting the opening brace on the same line has few if any drawbacks,
It does have at least one drawback: readability. That's why some people prefer to put it on its own line. If you disagree about the readability thing, fine, but some do see it as a drawback to putting the open brace on the end of the previous line.
but putting the closing brace on the last line has drawbacks, such as the inability to add a later statement without moving the brace between lines, adding a properly scoped // NOT REACHED comment, or other things people do.
This is a good point. Of course, adding a line and moving the brace is not that difficult, but it is some extra effort that is avoided by putting the close brace on its own line. If that outweighs the vertical spacing issue, I'll accept that.
The fact that you would propose such a ridiculous argument tells me that you know that opening braces on their own line is at best a style choice with drawbacks,
Well of course, ALL styles have drawbacks and advantages, and different people have different priorities about those advantages and disadvantages.
and that you are defensive about it and need to rationalize it. In other words, you know K&R is a more efficient style yet you would rather tear it down with false arguments than adopt it...
No, you completely misunderstood me. I was absolutely not defensive about it or trying to rationalize it. In fact, I tried to say very little about which style is better. If you say K&R is more efficient, I was suggesting a way to make it even more efficient, or whatever.
Here's a way to look at what I was saying: For purposes of this discussion, say there are two styles: A and B. Some prefer A, some prefer B. I use A, you use B. I will continue to use A for whatever reasons I choose, but if you choose to use B, here is a suggestion on how you might optimize your use of style B, using the very reasoning that leads you to use B in the first place.
what does that say about you as a programmer?
Ok, I apologize for taking this quote out of context, but what it says about me is that I try to be helpful. Perhaps you thought I was being sarcastic or something. I wasn't saying your style is worse because of some slippery-slope argument. I actually recognize that people have their preferences for whatever reasons they have. I was genuinely offering a suggestion on how to improve a coding style I don't use just because I didn't understand the inconsistency in the style. You did point out a problem with my suggestion, but as I said before, all styles have advantages and disadvantages. It's up to you to decide which ones are important to you.
I prefer vertically aligning open and close braces, too. I was just making a point that the people who do the same-line open brace and use the vertical-space argument are only getting it half right. If the one line from the open brace is that important, they should also be doing something about the wasted line from the close brace.
If you aren't going to line up the braces, get them out of the way and just use indentation for visual identification of blocks. If you are going to use one brace for a visual aid, use both of them and make them at least look like they are associated with each other (by aligning them vertically).
In my example, I get rid of the idea of pretending to use one brace for a visual aid and instead use only indentation. Some say the beginning of a block can be seen by the increased indentation. Can the end of a block not also be seen by the decreased indentation as you back out a level? The braces are there only because the syntax requires them. They are out of the way because they aren't being used for any human-readability.
Having said all that, I still prefer keeping the braces out there where I can see them.
If vertical space is an issue, why not do something like this?
if(something_is_true) {
do(something);
do(one_more_thing); }
else {
do(something_else);
do(one_last_thing); }
The closing brace on its own line wastes just as much space as an opening brace would.
Sign up for the Direct Marketing Association do-not-mail list at http://www.dmaconsumers.org/ and opt out of credit card and insurance offers at http://www.optoutprescreen.com/ . It takes several months to see the effects, but these days the only mail I get is some of the local advertisements with no mailing label ("To Postal Customer") and stuff that is actually for me.
Alpine's Like Pine: It's Not Elm
I've had one or two times when I've been very glad that I use some sense with following distance. The thought process in these situations is something like this: "OK, I need to slow down now...... Oh, I really need to slow down now!"
I sure hope people aren't locking up their brakes (or engaging ABS) every time they see brake lights in front of them.
Not quite. This was actually done with an array of spacially synchronized cameras around the stadium, so when they flew around a freeze-frame, it was actually showing the view as seen from each of these cameras. Take a look at how they did "bullet time" on "The Matrix." What you saw on the Super Bowl was a crude semi-live version of this.
Uh, sorry I don't see anything sarcastic there. Seriously. Don't you think that could have been an entirely straighforward conversation with no sarcasm. But this is Slashdot, we couldn't have that.
Hmm... Heads up indeed. Or perhaps eyes up. He did mention "aviation notation" in the subject line. But that's why I don't like it when people make the subject line the beginning of the first sentence of their post, then continuing it in the actual body. It makes it a bit confusing because it's so easy to skip past the subject line and get to the meat of the post. The subject line should be a reference to the body, but the body should be able to stand on its own.
This is similar to Superlink, but this relies on wired technology. It's cool for the coolness factor, but things like Superlink could become critical forms of semi-long-range communication when internet and telephone lines get destroyed in a major disaster, for example. Yes, there is HF as well, but these days VHF is probably a lot more common, and so quite important for emergency communications.
Yes, in fact I've taken enough physics courses to know that very often there's often more at play than just what they teach you in a high school physics class. I'm sure most high school physics classes don't take air resistance into account for newtonian physics calculations (mine didn't), but it most certainly does have a measurable impact in real life. It isn't discussed because it adds a whole new layer of complexity.
I've taken enough physics to know that there is alot that I don't know about physics (and for good reason, too), and to realize that the spin of large bodies very well may have an effect on their relative movement, but the topic was not discussed to eliminate the extra layer of complexity that is unnecessary for non-physics majors. In fact, other forces could also be at play here (contrary to what you say). One I can think of now is magnetic fields. But I make no claims about that. Just showing that other forces can indeed affect something like this.
Oh, yeah... You're right. I'm an idiot because I know something you don't know, I come to a news site expecting to find a hint of news, I show a slight bit more of an attempt at being polite and providing useful information than half the other slashdot posters, and I don't hide behind anonymity to insult someone I know nothing about. I apologize for my inexcusable behavior. It won't happen again.
My understanding of this is that it has to do with the fact that the moon rotates the same direction that it revolves around Earth. In cases where a moon revolves and rotates in opposite directions, it gets closer. Of course, I don't know why. It's just what I heard about it.
Sure. The moon is moving away from the Earth, not toward it. Bad joke, try again.
So is there any actual news today?