I don't think you can buy a laser printer that's as good as inkjet printers at printing colour photos... and is cheap enough to buy for sporadic home use.
I'd be happy if you tell me I'm wrong. Have I've just been sucked in by marketing?
Good to see that someone has made a benchmark test like this. It'd be interesting to see the results of testing the differences between printers too.
It would be interesting to know how the quarks that make up neutrons and protons behave. Do they cluster like a bag of bags of marbles (separate clusters), or cluster like a single bag of marbles (single cluster), or superimpose (one blob, probably spherical). Do these clusters stretch, especially in covalent bonds?
That deviation is a maximum, so I think what they're saying is that if an electron is not a perfect sphere, then it deviates from being a perfect sphere by a very tiny amount. Electrons might still be perfect spheres, but we can't measure to perfection.
This could be used for:
- games (both FPS and tactical)
- better civil engineering planning (seeing how a project will affect its surroundings)
- archaelogy (understanding old battlefields)
- current military (understanding new battlefields)
- terrorism (see "current military")
- tourism (find hotels/other with good location)
What other uses can we think of?
(I think it's pretty nifty.:)
A bit off topic... but say you needed a good software/networking architect and Fang Binxing came for an interview, would you consider as a good candidate or a bad candidate? On the one hand he's designed the Great Firewall, but on the other hand... he's designed the Great Firewall.
I thought that creationism is "Poof, there's a universe", as compared to intelligent design that doesn't actually refute scientific findings (even accepting that it's billions of years old), but ascribes all the wonderous things we see to sky daddy's imagination.
That makes two very different ideas. The first is pure fairy tale, the other is closer to science fiction.
No, for creationism.Yes, for "intelligent design", meaning that one accepts evolution, but sees it as a tool used by god to tweak and direct evolution.
Is creationism even considered "science"?
No, because scientific method has not been applied. It's based on blind faith which is the inverse of science.
If you want people to pay attention to what you're saying, then the first thing to avoid doing is to avoid offending them. Religious people tend to get quite offended when you dismiss their religion.
So, the trick, or "middle ground", is to not talk away their faith, but rather to play along with it. Intelligent design is a good middle ground, because it allows for both evolution and godliness. So you can actually start some sort of dialog (which is better than none).
Spoken like a true non-dumb user who can't see from others' perspectives.
I think the sensible thing would be to ask some "dummies" for advice on what makes more sense to them, rather than second guessing. In a sense, ask "domain experts who are experts in being dumb users".
And with proper UI/business layer separation, it's possible to "skin" different UI's for different user types. Not suitable for most applications, but for basic use applications, it might be exactly the right thing to do.
I guess, to a degree, because spy agencies seem to see themselves as above the law.
But still think that most people in law enforcement do respect the laws that they're trying to enforce.
That difference in attitude is why spy agencies really should have clear limitations that should be enforced, somehow.
...the list of risks would be too long and fairly obvious about allowing an "agency almost unfettered discretion to determine when and how 's powers may be used to gather information about people's activities".
Which is why I thought it might be a very new trait just among humans. If so, would that mean that people from isolated cultures may have avoided developing such a trait, such as Australian aboriginals who didn't have access to religious wars for tens of thousands of years? I'm not convinced of that.
Perhaps original zealotry was tribal zealotry? If so, then as cultures became more complex, zealotry happened to other aspects of human culture, such as king and country, religion and then sports. I think it might explain various social problems, such as violent gangs, racism, etc.
Okay, so being a fanboy is akin to being religious, regardless of whether you're a Catholic fanboy or a devoted Apple devotee, or whatever.
What I want to know is: Why do we have that instinct in the first place? I understand social instincts, parental instincts, even mob mentality.
But what good is religious fervour? Is it an instinct that's so new that only humans have it? Or is it not an instinct at all, but more of an overdeveloped pack instinct?
...again! Because if you don't read/hear/see any problems, then they can be safely ignored. <massive sarcasm>
When will governments/law enforcement around the world accept that reponsible leaking of information is in everyones best interests (except the corrupt)?
(I guess the answer to that is: When governments/law enforcement cease to be corrupt.)
You could monitor, manage and control every light bulb from any Internet-enabled device – turning lights on and off individually, dimming or creating scenes from your smartphone, tablet, PC or TV
Ooh! Imagine how one could mess with people with something like that... !!!
Nuclear seepage is an unseen threat that people are not used to, and its direct effects can be seen.
"Downriver of the nuclear plant there are lots of mutated amphibians and fish."
Carbon emissions are an unseen threat that people are used to, but its effects can't be seen (because it's effects are indirect).
"Apparently burning of fossil fuels over the past several decades over the world is why the climate is changing. So if I stop burring stuff, then that'll make a difference, how?!?"
What so many people don't understand is that the irony that nuclear power is safer specifically because one is holding something that clearly is very dangerous.
Nuclear waste looks really scary, and it is really scary, but it's contained and therefore managable (especially when in barrels under a stable mountain). Sure, getting it there and storing it there is not always successful, but it's better than nothing.
CO2 is not containable and therefore not managable at all, but it's still there and it's still harmful. But because it's not harmful in a direct sense, then no threat can be seen, so it's very difficult for people to understand how great a threat it is. But when there are clear cimate changes, and those climate changes can be clearly pointed out, then people begin to understand the threat of climate change. But the connection between climate change and CO2 emmisions is still not something you can just point at, thereof the controversy.
The problem in both cases is that when you finally see the consequences, then it's too late. The difference is that with nuclear power, the consequences are localised.
Mod up, please. Google Earth + Electricity habits.
Why dont' we see this more of this in film, as that would act as a warning to the oblivious public? Who needs ultra tech in spy movies and crime dramas when the info is so readily available?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you can buy a laser printer that's as good as inkjet printers at printing colour photos... and is cheap enough to buy for sporadic home use.
I'd be happy if you tell me I'm wrong. Have I've just been sucked in by marketing?
Good to see that someone has made a benchmark test like this. It'd be interesting to see the results of testing the differences between printers too.
It would be interesting to know how the quarks that make up neutrons and protons behave. Do they cluster like a bag of bags of marbles (separate clusters), or cluster like a single bag of marbles (single cluster), or superimpose (one blob, probably spherical). Do these clusters stretch, especially in covalent bonds?
Do we perhaps already know?
That deviation is a maximum, so I think what they're saying is that if an electron is not a perfect sphere, then it deviates from being a perfect sphere by a very tiny amount. Electrons might still be perfect spheres, but we can't measure to perfection.
You'd need a pretty big cup to fit an F sized... oh, battery, whoops!
This could be used for:
:)
- games (both FPS and tactical)
- better civil engineering planning (seeing how a project will affect its surroundings)
- archaelogy (understanding old battlefields)
- current military (understanding new battlefields)
- terrorism (see "current military")
- tourism (find hotels/other with good location)
What other uses can we think of?
(I think it's pretty nifty.
So if your device is rooted, then your movie viewing is rooted. ;)
A bit off topic... but say you needed a good software/networking architect and Fang Binxing came for an interview, would you consider as a good candidate or a bad candidate? On the one hand he's designed the Great Firewall, but on the other hand... he's designed the Great Firewall.
I thought that creationism is "Poof, there's a universe", as compared to intelligent design that doesn't actually refute scientific findings (even accepting that it's billions of years old), but ascribes all the wonderous things we see to sky daddy's imagination.
That makes two very different ideas. The first is pure fairy tale, the other is closer to science fiction.
Yep, and a change in sprites.
Yes, GP is being sarcastic. Icelanders are not Slavic, they're mainly Germanic and Gaelic (probably mixed with Inuit).
Can you be an "creationist scientist"?
No, for creationism.Yes, for "intelligent design", meaning that one accepts evolution, but sees it as a tool used by god to tweak and direct evolution.
Is creationism even considered "science"?
No, because scientific method has not been applied. It's based on blind faith which is the inverse of science.
If you want people to pay attention to what you're saying, then the first thing to avoid doing is to avoid offending them. Religious people tend to get quite offended when you dismiss their religion.
So, the trick, or "middle ground", is to not talk away their faith, but rather to play along with it. Intelligent design is a good middle ground, because it allows for both evolution and godliness. So you can actually start some sort of dialog (which is better than none).
Spoken like a true non-dumb user who can't see from others' perspectives.
I think the sensible thing would be to ask some "dummies" for advice on what makes more sense to them, rather than second guessing. In a sense, ask "domain experts who are experts in being dumb users".
And with proper UI/business layer separation, it's possible to "skin" different UI's for different user types. Not suitable for most applications, but for basic use applications, it might be exactly the right thing to do.
I guess, to a degree, because spy agencies seem to see themselves as above the law.
But still think that most people in law enforcement do respect the laws that they're trying to enforce.
That difference in attitude is why spy agencies really should have clear limitations that should be enforced, somehow.
...the list of risks would be too long and fairly obvious about allowing an "agency almost unfettered discretion to determine when and how 's powers may be used to gather information about people's activities".
Which is why I thought it might be a very new trait just among humans. If so, would that mean that people from isolated cultures may have avoided developing such a trait, such as Australian aboriginals who didn't have access to religious wars for tens of thousands of years? I'm not convinced of that.
Perhaps original zealotry was tribal zealotry? If so, then as cultures became more complex, zealotry happened to other aspects of human culture, such as king and country, religion and then sports. I think it might explain various social problems, such as violent gangs, racism, etc.
Understanding this might be really valuable.
I suggest, 'objects formerly known as planets'.
Yes, and we can use an unpronouncable symbol instead of a proper name, commonly known as "planet symbol". ;)
Okay, so being a fanboy is akin to being religious, regardless of whether you're a Catholic fanboy or a devoted Apple devotee, or whatever.
What I want to know is: Why do we have that instinct in the first place? I understand social instincts, parental instincts, even mob mentality.
But what good is religious fervour? Is it an instinct that's so new that only humans have it? Or is it not an instinct at all, but more of an overdeveloped pack instinct?
Any suggestions, anyone?
The HTC Desire HD is almost a little too big. But yes, you are quite right: it's very nice having such a big screen on a PDA phone. :)
...again! Because if you don't read/hear/see any problems, then they can be safely ignored. <massive sarcasm>
When will governments/law enforcement around the world accept that reponsible leaking of information is in everyones best interests (except the corrupt)?
(I guess the answer to that is: When governments/law enforcement cease to be corrupt.)
But I guess I'm preaching to the converted.
You could monitor, manage and control every light bulb from any Internet-enabled device – turning lights on and off individually, dimming or creating scenes from your smartphone, tablet, PC or TV
Ooh! Imagine how one could mess with people with something like that... !!!
The possibilities are endless
Squish 'em!
That's a picture of a crashed UFO (plus a couple of Canadians who found it).
the Gemini program if the astronauts had always gone up in pairs.
Remind me to never go an any mission named Scorpio... <shudder>
Nuclear seepage is an unseen threat that people are not used to, and its direct effects can be seen.
"Downriver of the nuclear plant there are lots of mutated amphibians and fish."
Carbon emissions are an unseen threat that people are used to, but its effects can't be seen (because it's effects are indirect).
"Apparently burning of fossil fuels over the past several decades over the world is why the climate is changing. So if I stop burring stuff, then that'll make a difference, how?!?"
What so many people don't understand is that the irony that nuclear power is safer specifically because one is holding something that clearly is very dangerous.
Nuclear waste looks really scary, and it is really scary, but it's contained and therefore managable (especially when in barrels under a stable mountain). Sure, getting it there and storing it there is not always successful, but it's better than nothing.
CO2 is not containable and therefore not managable at all, but it's still there and it's still harmful. But because it's not harmful in a direct sense, then no threat can be seen, so it's very difficult for people to understand how great a threat it is. But when there are clear cimate changes, and those climate changes can be clearly pointed out, then people begin to understand the threat of climate change. But the connection between climate change and CO2 emmisions is still not something you can just point at, thereof the controversy.
The problem in both cases is that when you finally see the consequences, then it's too late. The difference is that with nuclear power, the consequences are localised.
Mod up, please. Google Earth + Electricity habits.
Why dont' we see this more of this in film, as that would act as a warning to the oblivious public? Who needs ultra tech in spy movies and crime dramas when the info is so readily available?