Yeah right. Going above 31 fps is really important. Not!
The whole point of the game is that they manage something nearly impossible- how many polygons do you think it takes to draw a whole continent anyway? Hint: more than any graphics card can do.
Therefore the game scales back the number of polygons to hit a particular framerate. The designers obviously chose 31 fps because if you go much faster than that the players can't really see it anyway. (Don't bother explaining how YOU can feel the difference- you can't.)
Apart from that you make some very good points. It's a bit overhyped. Basically at the end of the day its similar to Magic Carpet 2 with shades of Dungeon Keeper.
Still, its fun. I've played games that are a LOT worse.
But, I agree in the final analysis its leaping for 10/10 but only making 8/10.
This is really cool to watch; although some CDs and some ovens are better than others. The first time I did this it looked like a scene out of a sci-fi movie with blue lines dancing all over the CD. It often leaves a really pretty fractal pattern on the CD too.
However, note that some ovens must have something in them to absorb the microwaves or it might damage the magnetron. So, if you do this it is important to put a small cup of water next to the CD. This will help unless the CD catches fire;-) It's thus important to only do this for a few seconds...
Disclaimer: do this entirely under your own risk, it can burn your house down and destroy the microwave if you aren't careful.
An adult must be present at all times. They will need to see how to do it properly.
Hmm. Either I had a login and I didn't know it(!) or they've just discovered that they'd left password protection off the page... anyway I can't access it anymore.
No. It is actually negative. A fractional refractive index is seen all the time like when going from glass into air. That's why this is a big deal its actually negative.
A negative refractive index means that the wave is travelling in the opposite direction (kinda, but there's a big difference between group velocity and phase velocity- phase velocity is negative, but group velocity will still be positive IRC).
No. They've discovered a material where a wave entering it travels in the reverse direction when in the material than it entered or when it leaves.
You'd expect that that would mean that waves would get reflected but if you do the maths or think about the wave on the boundary of the material you find that that's not the case... anyway that's the best I can explain it in laymans terms.
I've put metal in microwave ovens loads of time. Many of the implements that came with my microwave over are metal. Heck, the microwave itself is made of metal.
You have to be really careful to avoid arcing but provided you don't totally cover the food and bear in mind that it DOES reflect microwaves and can get hot sometimes there's nothing wrong with that at all.
Indeed aluminium foil is used to stop parts of chickens overcooking- that's a completely standard technique. Check out any microwave cookery book and they'll tell you how to do it.
Aerials do work if they are significantly smaller than the wavelength (1/4 of the wavelength is perfectly fine), but the efficiency goes down as the aerial size decreases. A cup would typically be >6cm across which is plenty big enough.
Partially true. However ants are fine in a microwave normally.
There's also a big current set up due to resonance effects and resistive heating. That effect is atleast as big as the water molecule effect and is specifically the reason that you get arcing sometimes when you have metal foil in a microwave.
Incidentally fats also get heated very strongly in microwave ovens so it isn't just water molecules.
Normal lenses have a limit that light can't be focused down more than a certain limit based on the size of the lens. However negative refractive indexes allow more precision than that.
Actually yes you can, if what I understand is correct, you will be able to do it in your microwave oven!
(Big whoop, can't I do that already? Answer: no you can't. Ants are seriously smaller than the wavelength of your microwave and hence are pretty much unaffected by it- ant heaps can actually live in a working microwave!)
When the Americans came over first time it was mainly development- the competitors had been at it for a couple of years in US, whereas the British had only had a minimal amount of time and hadn't had much chance to see what worked.
This time? It's hard to say. The basic robot design rules are pretty similar as far as I know; but small differences can make a big difference to the result. Still, some of the robots in the UK are pretty good... as are some of the robots in the US.
My feeling is that some of the better robots in the UK are more adaptable or rounded somehow, but I'm not sure why.
The irony is that when the program first started; to try out the format; the program makers asked a few brits to make some robots and then played them off against the robots from the American Battlebots program.
The Americans slaughtered the UK bots.
Looks like the shoe might be on the other foot now though.
Yes. So you leave perl 6.0 out and... the system defaults to perl 5.0 syntax or if you're really being crude it just runs perl 5.0 instead. And this is hard because?
To a reasonable approximation either the 6.0 system understands 5.0 syntax or it doesn't. If it doesn't its going to come unstuck anyway when people try to run it on legacy code. If it does, and Larry seems to imply that it does to some extent, then there's no excuse for making this harder for users.
A language should beg people to use it. It sells more books too.
Yes, but with linux the sys admin usually IS the user. And you download this fantastic neato perl app thing over the internet and... and... it doesn't work.
Of course your perl came bundled with the OS and is a version behind.
So you would swear about perl a bit and then you give up. That's how it goes pretty much isn't it?
Whilst I agree that the article is harsh, there's a fundamental truth here.
As the article points out, you're assuming that if you run this screenserver that your computer will even be working on this. They don't promise that.
For all you know the first two computers work on this problem, and the next 20000 computers work on making a buck for someone else. That wouldn't be good at all. Until that is clarified I for one ain't gonna touch it with a bargepole. All charity work (this is a charity work as we are donating bandwidth, our time, processor time and electrical power) has to be as transparent as humanly possible. I don't necessarily mind a small amount of profit. But it had better be small.
>Sure, you can save your company $50,000 by using
>linux of NT, but that is licensing costs. If you
>have to hire anouther admin because it is
>more work for your administrators to get their
>job done, then you haven't saved money.
Where I work we actually have ratios of 80:1 of desktops to support staff for our UNIX boxes. Apparently the normal ratio with NT is more like 20:1. And no, our support staff don't get paid 3x as much to do Unix than NT...
The implication is that going to Linux can actually reduce the support costs, particularly if you design the network with that in mind. Probably need LESS people... and less licensing issues and costs.
Nope. Its a Russian launch system. And it's a joint US/Canadian/Russian/European space station. And the rules say that crew membership is decided by the source country. The Russians have chosen Tito. No votes, them's the rules.
Stop whinging.
The best NASA can do is try not to kill another civilian. One is careless. Two... Imagine the fuss there will be if Tito dies and it turns out that he died because NASA refused to train him.
a) NASA is really scared of losing another civilian after last time. Really, really scared. Last time there was a significant risk of closing them down entirely. If NASA screws up and kill Tito in the ISS they are in big, big trouble. And its not all that unlikely; space stations are much more fragile than you might suppose. Fire in space is BAD news for example.
b) Canada doesn't or shouldn't care about whether there is a civilian aboard or not. It doesn't materially affect the chances of a successful mission. Did NASA put them up to this? Does a fish swim? Does a British Prime Minister support every American president at every turn? You betcha.
c) the only reason that Tito isn't trained is because NASA refused to let him be trained. To turn around and state that he hasn't been trained and therefore can't launch is tantamount to NASA saying: "we decide who goes up and who doesn't, don't bother arguing". Yeah right. International, Space Station. Real international. Under the rules team member is chosen exclusively by the country of origin.
d) NASA can't actually physically stop him going up. The Russians have the launch vehicle and he is to launch from Russia. If he gets to the ISS NASA has ackowledged that he will NOT be stopped from going anywhere in the ISS.
e) if NASA actually succeed in forcing Tito to step down or whatever they will NEVER live it down. What kind of example of a supposedly capitalistic country does this make? Aren't NASA supposed to represent the aspirations of America at all? Sorry, you can't go because you've worked hard and you're rich.
Hey! I'll take one of these defensive only guns. I can give one to everyone I know too. They sound really great!
IRL, guns aren't only good at defense, they are better at offense. And they are really efficient at suicide and aren't half bad at shooting little kids in the hands of... little kids. And they are fantastic in an argument. Something along the lines of 'I didn't mean to shoot her, but the gun went off and...'.
The statistics show that these are what they are mostly used for in America. Not what people get them for normally, but what they get used for when somebody ends up dead.
It's like seatbelts. A lot of people are alive because of seatbelts. Is it right that people are forced by law to wear seatbelts? Not exactly, but its very convenient. Are more people alive that have seatbelts than would have been if they hadn't. Of course. Should you wear seatbelts? Almost certainly.
Its just like guns. The evidence shows that people on average, in America, and elsewhere cannot be trusted with guns. There's plenty of people that CAN be trusted with guns. But there's no way practical way to tell the two sorts of people apart.
Kids get hold of guns much more easily if an adult they know has one. They steal the key, the adult leaves it unlocked whatever. Kids have always, and always will, failed to understand that dead people don't get up again ever. And where they do understand they tend to use that information in tragic ways.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah right. Going above 31 fps is really important. Not!
The whole point of the game is that they manage something nearly impossible- how many polygons do you think it takes to draw a whole continent anyway? Hint: more than any graphics card can do.
Therefore the game scales back the number of polygons to hit a particular framerate. The designers obviously chose 31 fps because if you go much faster than that the players can't really see it anyway. (Don't bother explaining how YOU can feel the difference- you can't.)
Apart from that you make some very good points. It's a bit overhyped. Basically at the end of the day its similar to Magic Carpet 2 with shades of Dungeon Keeper.
Still, its fun. I've played games that are a LOT worse.
But, I agree in the final analysis its leaping for 10/10 but only making 8/10.
Or both, or neither.
They could be very clever or very lucky. Or very unlucky. Or any combination. Should be interesting.
Hmm. Good questions. I expect I'll get back to you tomorrow.
This is really cool to watch; although some CDs and some ovens are better than others. The first time I did this it looked like a scene out of a sci-fi movie with blue lines dancing all over the CD. It often leaves a really pretty fractal pattern on the CD too.
;-) It's thus important to only do this for a few seconds...
However, note that some ovens must have something in them to absorb the microwaves or it might damage the magnetron. So, if you do this it is important to put a small cup of water next to the CD. This will help unless the CD catches fire
Disclaimer: do this entirely under your own risk, it can burn your house down and destroy the microwave if you aren't careful.
An adult must be present at all times. They will need to see how to do it properly.
Hmm. Either I had a login and I didn't know it(!) or they've just discovered that they'd left password protection off the page... anyway I can't access it anymore.
cmstremi
;-)
>How will this help me pick up chicks?
It won't. They will have better binoculars and be able to see you coming from miles away. It should help them find me though
No. It is actually negative. A fractional refractive index is seen all the time like when going from glass into air. That's why this is a big deal its actually negative.
A negative refractive index means that the wave is travelling in the opposite direction (kinda, but there's a big difference between group velocity and phase velocity- phase velocity is negative, but group velocity will still be positive IRC).
No. They've discovered a material where a wave entering it travels in the reverse direction when in the material than it entered or when it leaves.
You'd expect that that would mean that waves would get reflected but if you do the maths or think about the wave on the boundary of the material you find that that's not the case... anyway that's the best I can explain it in laymans terms.
I've put metal in microwave ovens loads of time. Many of the implements that came with my microwave over are metal. Heck, the microwave itself is made of metal.
You have to be really careful to avoid arcing but provided you don't totally cover the food and bear in mind that it DOES reflect microwaves and can get hot sometimes there's nothing wrong with that at all.
Indeed aluminium foil is used to stop parts of chickens overcooking- that's a completely standard technique. Check out any microwave cookery book and they'll tell you how to do it.
Aerials do work if they are significantly smaller than the wavelength (1/4 of the wavelength is perfectly fine), but the efficiency goes down as the aerial size decreases. A cup would typically be >6cm across which is plenty big enough.
Partially true. However ants are fine in a microwave normally.
There's also a big current set up due to resonance effects and resistive heating. That effect is atleast as big as the water molecule effect and is specifically the reason that you get arcing sometimes when you have metal foil in a microwave.
Incidentally fats also get heated very strongly in microwave ovens so it isn't just water molecules.
Check out the following link to a PDF file:
Physical Review Letters
Warning: probably don't bother if you haven't studied Maxwells equations... definitely don't bother if you haven't heard of Maxwell's equations!
Actually yes you can, if what I understand is correct, you will be able to do it in your microwave oven!
(Big whoop, can't I do that already? Answer: no you can't. Ants are seriously smaller than the wavelength of your microwave and hence are pretty much unaffected by it- ant heaps can actually live in a working microwave!)
When the Americans came over first time it was mainly development- the competitors had been at it for a couple of years in US, whereas the British had only had a minimal amount of time and hadn't had much chance to see what worked.
This time? It's hard to say. The basic robot design rules are pretty similar as far as I know; but small differences can make a big difference to the result. Still, some of the robots in the UK are pretty good... as are some of the robots in the US.
My feeling is that some of the better robots in the UK are more adaptable or rounded somehow, but I'm not sure why.
The irony is that when the program first started; to try out the format; the program makers asked a few brits to make some robots and then played them off against the robots from the American Battlebots program.
The Americans slaughtered the UK bots.
Looks like the shoe might be on the other foot now though.
Yes. So you leave perl 6.0 out and... the system defaults to perl 5.0 syntax or if you're really being crude it just runs perl 5.0 instead. And this is hard because?
To a reasonable approximation either the 6.0 system understands 5.0 syntax or it doesn't. If it doesn't its going to come unstuck anyway when people try to run it on legacy code. If it does, and Larry seems to imply that it does to some extent, then there's no excuse for making this harder for users.
A language should beg people to use it. It sells more books too.
Yes, but with linux the sys admin usually IS the user. And you download this fantastic neato perl app thing over the internet and... and... it doesn't work.
Of course your perl came bundled with the OS and is a version behind.
So you would swear about perl a bit and then you give up. That's how it goes pretty much isn't it?
it starts with non package?
Sure that works. Sure.
But wouldn't it make the language a lot more readable to start with a new line like:
perl 6.0
Then newbies would be more likely to guess why their perl5 compiler/interpreter croaks??
No of course not. That would make no sense. They wouldn't have to buy a book from a certain well known publisher to use Perl...
So I'm cynical. Call me cynical.
Whilst I agree that the article is harsh, there's a fundamental truth here.
As the article points out, you're assuming that if you run this screenserver that your computer will even be working on this. They don't promise that.
For all you know the first two computers work on this problem, and the next 20000 computers work on making a buck for someone else. That wouldn't be good at all. Until that is clarified I for one ain't gonna touch it with a bargepole. All charity work (this is a charity work as we are donating bandwidth, our time, processor time and electrical power) has to be as transparent as humanly possible. I don't necessarily mind a small amount of profit. But it had better be small.
>Sure, you can save your company $50,000 by using
>linux of NT, but that is licensing costs. If you
>have to hire anouther admin because it is
>more work for your administrators to get their
>job done, then you haven't saved money.
Where I work we actually have ratios of 80:1 of desktops to support staff for our UNIX boxes. Apparently the normal ratio with NT is more like 20:1. And no, our support staff don't get paid 3x as much to do Unix than NT...
The implication is that going to Linux can actually reduce the support costs, particularly if you design the network with that in mind. Probably need LESS people... and less licensing issues and costs.
Or if you're really good, you hide NO April Fools pranks among a list of *true* news items that all look like they aren't.
In that case, if the law allows, I suggest you carry a fake gun. 90+% of the advantages, few of the disadvantages.
And no, I wasn't referring to Kellerman.
Nope. Its a Russian launch system. And it's a joint US/Canadian/Russian/European space station. And the rules say that crew membership is decided by the source country. The Russians have chosen Tito. No votes, them's the rules.
Stop whinging.
The best NASA can do is try not to kill another civilian. One is careless. Two... Imagine the fuss there will be if Tito dies and it turns out that he died because NASA refused to train him.
a) NASA is really scared of losing another civilian after last time. Really, really scared. Last time there was a significant risk of closing them down entirely. If NASA screws up and kill Tito in the ISS they are in big, big trouble. And its not all that unlikely; space stations are much more fragile than you might suppose. Fire in space is BAD news for example.
b) Canada doesn't or shouldn't care about whether there is a civilian aboard or not. It doesn't materially affect the chances of a successful mission. Did NASA put them up to this? Does a fish swim? Does a British Prime Minister support every American president at every turn? You betcha.
c) the only reason that Tito isn't trained is because NASA refused to let him be trained. To turn around and state that he hasn't been trained and therefore can't launch is tantamount to NASA saying: "we decide who goes up and who doesn't, don't bother arguing". Yeah right. International, Space Station. Real international. Under the rules team member is chosen exclusively by the country of origin.
d) NASA can't actually physically stop him going up. The Russians have the launch vehicle and he is to launch from Russia. If he gets to the ISS NASA has ackowledged that he will NOT be stopped from going anywhere in the ISS.
e) if NASA actually succeed in forcing Tito to step down or whatever they will NEVER live it down. What kind of example of a supposedly capitalistic country does this make? Aren't NASA supposed to represent the aspirations of America at all? Sorry, you can't go because you've worked hard and you're rich.
Hey! I'll take one of these defensive only guns. I can give one to everyone I know too. They sound really great!
IRL, guns aren't only good at defense, they are better at offense. And they are really efficient at suicide and aren't half bad at shooting little kids in the hands of... little kids. And they are fantastic in an argument. Something along the lines of 'I didn't mean to shoot her, but the gun went off and...'.
The statistics show that these are what they are mostly used for in America. Not what people get them for normally, but what they get used for when somebody ends up dead.
It's like seatbelts. A lot of people are alive because of seatbelts. Is it right that people are forced by law to wear seatbelts? Not exactly, but its very convenient. Are more people alive that have seatbelts than would have been if they hadn't. Of course. Should you wear seatbelts? Almost certainly.
Its just like guns. The evidence shows that people on average, in America, and elsewhere cannot be trusted with guns. There's plenty of people that CAN be trusted with guns. But there's no way practical way to tell the two sorts of people apart.
Kids get hold of guns much more easily if an adult they know has one. They steal the key, the adult leaves it unlocked whatever. Kids have always, and always will, failed to understand that dead people don't get up again ever. And where they do understand they tend to use that information in tragic ways.