The "+3, informative" on your post makes me wonder if anybody else is getting it.
"Condensed Water," guys. As in, "it condensed out of the air." Which our lab-rat friend pointed out could be looked at as having had most of the air removed from it.
It's possible, although I can't be sure, that there was a post between you two. When things get moderated low enough on slashdot, they disappear, and the replies are "reparented," which leads to confusing things like this.
Just so you've heard it, I think my neighbor runs his air conditioning way the hell too much. It's loud, and right underneath my window. It's been right at 70 degrees here the last three or four days, and his AC runs a lot. Mine's off.
I can't imagine how cold it is in his house. Anyway, just because you haven't seen the bitching doesn't mean some of us aren't concerned about wasting energy in general. Unlike with the SUVs, though, he pays the same rate I do for power and his AC unit. I don't think he gets a tax credit for keeping his home at meat-locker levels.
People should drive whatever they want. Or use their AC however much they want-- but they should pay the real cost. No tax credits for "business" SUVs. No exemptions from fuel economy or emissions laws for SUVs. Just like with the AC, if you want it, you pay for your use, including paying for any damage to the commons that your use causes.
5.25" is the best you can do? People much older and crankier than you and I used 8-inch floppies. And of course, a whole bevy of bizarrely creative things before that, ranging from boxes of painstakingly-organized punch cards to paper tape to mercury delay tubes (more like RAM, i suppose) to big reel-to-reel tapes.
Hell, some of them had to just *remember* the whole program, and dip-switch it in one binary word at a time, while manually toggling in the memory address for that particular word.
Seems fishy to me, too. Freezing is defined for all materials as the freezing point for water at a specific and arbitrary pressure? Odd, but dumber things have happened.
The dictionary seems to disagree with him, giving a half-dozen definitions none of which indicate 0c is involved at all. A few suggest that I'm not insane, though:
"to adhere solidly by or as if by freezing pressure caused the metals to freeze"
"to convert from a liquid to a solid by cold"
" to solidify as a result of abstraction of heat "
It's also dumb. It's like measuring how tall someone is by weighing them. Or calculating your CPU speed based on temperature.
There's a relationship in all these cases, to be sure. But height and weight are not directly proportional. Nor is fuel economy and emissions. There are so many other factors that measuring emissions is a lousy way to do this. Fuel economy is stated in miles per gallon-- why not do your test drive and then measure the MILES DRIVEN and the NUMBER OF GALLONS USED and get the real fuel economy? The EPA method baffles me.
Sorta... if you drove like they do in the place that they do (which probably doesn't exist anymore, since they do it on a dyno with a preprogrammed "course" for the car) you would match their numbers. Except that they don't do the smart thing and measure the distance travelled and the fuel consumed-- the EPA fuel economy is calculated based on TAILPIPE EMISSIONS. Which is ridiculous. As I said in an older post, it's like measuring how tall someone is by weighing them.
Wouldn't most solid matter technically be frozen-- just having a higher freezing point than water? I'm sure there's a few odd solid-like things that aren't technically frozen for one reason or another, but I'm gonna play slashbot and scream "overreaching patent" at you.
If you loved Tempest, Tempest 2000, and Tempest X, I *highly* recommend you pick up a copy of Rez. If you've got a PS2, I believe it's available. I played it on a dreamcast, which you can probably pick up on the cheap now, too.
Rez is the ultimate trippy techno space-shooter game, taking this sub-sub-sub-genre to another level altogether.
You get the same result by writing something nice like "Here's $20 to pick up a couple of books you like!"
Gift cards are a plague. A thoughtful note about what you think the money could be used for says as much about your effort (if not more) than picking up a plastic card from some random retailer. Which is more than likely just going to annoy the person when the local bookstore you bought it at doesn't have what they want, or charges too much for it. $20 goes a lot farther at Half-Price Books than it does at Borders.
Personally, I skip the Hallmark card, too. Those just say "I'm too lazy to write you a note. Here's some kittens." Get some nice stationary, and handwrite something to go with the cash. The whole thing will mean more to, be more useful, and purchase more for your recipient, all without letting some corporation earn interest on your gradually depreciating gift card purchase.
If there was sufficient juice to collapse into a black hole, the immense gravity might take care of reorienting the monkey's vision. We could also probably achieve the highly sought-after monkey-juice atomic fusion.
More realistically, we might also be able to submerge the monkey in juice. I suspect that the survival instinct outweighs the ass-staring instinct in most monkeys, with a moderate thousand-gallon juice investment, rather than the staggering quantity needed to form a black hole.
I think both quotes are correct, or close to it. They made quite a number of jokes of this variety in their various Hanz and Franz skits. I think it might even have been the Arnold episode with the "Listen to me know and believe me later" quote.
While I'm at it, YOUR post is untrue or very misleading. You said:
"The truth is that the frequency response curves for our primary color photo receptors PEAK at red, green and blue frequencies but the frequency response curves overlap extensively."
When in fact the receptors peak at yellowish-green, green, and blue. (559, 531, and 419nm, respectively) Red, Green, and Blue were chosen as a convenient set of primaries because of the relatively large gamut they represent from just three colors. To turn your accusation around, I doubt YOU have ever looked at a frequency response graph for the human eye.
Now, despite the fact that what you said was *factually* wrong, I think we can agree that the gist of your post was correct. The same was true of mine. Things are a great deal more complex than either you or I pointed out in any of our posts, and adding that information would have just confused people trying to understand how the screen worked.
Good point! Pantone should publish a "look what you've been missing" mini-version of their giant book that contains only colors that can't be represented with RGB. Then I could do dorky things like take pictures of them and compare the picture to the real thing.
"Emphasis added," indeed. Sorry if the wording was bad there-- I should have said "Our eyes have three types of color receptors" not "our eyes pick up three colors." Both are, however, true. Color does not equal frequency. We see millions of frequencies, but only three colors. Light falling into range for one of the receptor types, no matter what frequency, produces the same depolarization response from the receptor. End result? There are only three colors received by the brain from the eye. And "Some" was a poor choice, too. Sure, "millions" are "some," and the visible spectrum is a tiny part of the EM spectrum, but "infinitely many" is more descriptively accurate.
I know what misleading means. Are there three types of receptors in your eyes? Yes. Are they the reason we perceive color the way we do? Yes. Do they overlap significantly? Yes. I have looked at the graphs extensively. I have written colorspace conversion code.
I tried to be clear. It wasn't good enough for you, so I tender my humble apology.
Two of the peaks do overlap quite heavily. The third is significantly more isolated. If I simplified too much for you, I'm sorry. The whole point is that because there are three receptors, we can represent colors with just three colors chosen to fall into range for each of them, and that in addition to this-- because the receptors are not perfect single-frequency detectors, we also see the whole range of frequencies. This was my attempt to show 1. why RGB color works and 2. why it works imperfectly enough for ambient light to be an issue on a projector screen.
For the record, I don't think I was misleading. But I will try to be clear enough to appease even random nitpicking slashdotters in the future. While a few of my statements may seem misleading to you by themselves, I think that my post as a whole is quite clear.
Just in case you've misunderstood me... Definition: nitpicking
Please read more carefully. My original post said this several times, quite clearly:
"The color receptors are not perfectly isolated, but rather a sort of "bell curve" graph of sensitivity centered on a particular color, so there is some response outside the specific RGB wavelengths, although attenuated."
and here:
"So essentially, although we can SEE the ambient light at non-RGB frequencies, we only NEED to see the RGB frequencies from the projector to get a good representation of all the colors"
and here:
"Our eyes pick up three colors, but also some other wavelengths"
and here:
"Because our eyes' "RGB filters" aren't perfect, but rather a gradual curve, we see other frequencies of light."
and here:
"You may have noticed that if our eyes pick up more frequencies than are represented by RGB video, then RGB video must not be able to display all colors. This is absolutely correct-- the color gamut of RGB is smaller than that of the human eye."
I apologize if I didn't repeat it enough times for it to sink in for you, but I was quite clear that I was simplifying things in that example, and spent a whole paragraph using the fact you state (that our eyes see all frequencies rather than just RGB) to explain WHY it's necessary to reject the non-RGB light from the screen. It's like you didn't even read the post-- but I suppose this is slashdot.
I'm not normally one to get involved in console arguments, and I think these specs are fairly likely to be made-up. But just for the sake of what you're discussing here, didn't Nvidia include more advanced shader support in their xbox part than they had available in video cards available at the time?
For outdoor use on a laptop screen, you want a transflective display. I'm quite sure I saw a transmeta laptop with a transflective (rather than backlit) display at one point...
Agreed, but from the minimal information in the article, this is the way it would have to work. Either the projector is built to output only the light that matches the screen, or we suffer a large decrease in brightness to gain a large improvement in contrast.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that said Indianan predident.
And people from Indiana are called "Hoosiers."
Let's play "ruin his joke!" It's fun!
The "+3, informative" on your post makes me wonder if anybody else is getting it.
"Condensed Water," guys. As in, "it condensed out of the air." Which our lab-rat friend pointed out could be looked at as having had most of the air removed from it.
That is the funniest thing I've read all day.
It's possible, although I can't be sure, that there was a post between you two. When things get moderated low enough on slashdot, they disappear, and the replies are "reparented," which leads to confusing things like this.
Just so you've heard it, I think my neighbor runs his air conditioning way the hell too much. It's loud, and right underneath my window. It's been right at 70 degrees here the last three or four days, and his AC runs a lot. Mine's off.
I can't imagine how cold it is in his house. Anyway, just because you haven't seen the bitching doesn't mean some of us aren't concerned about wasting energy in general. Unlike with the SUVs, though, he pays the same rate I do for power and his AC unit. I don't think he gets a tax credit for keeping his home at meat-locker levels.
People should drive whatever they want. Or use their AC however much they want-- but they should pay the real cost. No tax credits for "business" SUVs. No exemptions from fuel economy or emissions laws for SUVs. Just like with the AC, if you want it, you pay for your use, including paying for any damage to the commons that your use causes.
5.25" is the best you can do? People much older and crankier than you and I used 8-inch floppies. And of course, a whole bevy of bizarrely creative things before that, ranging from boxes of painstakingly-organized punch cards to paper tape to mercury delay tubes (more like RAM, i suppose) to big reel-to-reel tapes.
Hell, some of them had to just *remember* the whole program, and dip-switch it in one binary word at a time, while manually toggling in the memory address for that particular word.
Makes you and me seem downright coddled.
Seems fishy to me, too. Freezing is defined for all materials as the freezing point for water at a specific and arbitrary pressure? Odd, but dumber things have happened.
The dictionary seems to disagree with him, giving a half-dozen definitions none of which indicate 0c is involved at all. A few suggest that I'm not insane, though:
"to adhere solidly by or as if by freezing pressure caused the metals to freeze"
"to convert from a liquid to a solid by cold"
" to solidify as a result of abstraction of heat "
It's also dumb. It's like measuring how tall someone is by weighing them. Or calculating your CPU speed based on temperature.
There's a relationship in all these cases, to be sure. But height and weight are not directly proportional. Nor is fuel economy and emissions. There are so many other factors that measuring emissions is a lousy way to do this. Fuel economy is stated in miles per gallon-- why not do your test drive and then measure the MILES DRIVEN and the NUMBER OF GALLONS USED and get the real fuel economy? The EPA method baffles me.
Sorta... if you drove like they do in the place that they do (which probably doesn't exist anymore, since they do it on a dyno with a preprogrammed "course" for the car) you would match their numbers. Except that they don't do the smart thing and measure the distance travelled and the fuel consumed-- the EPA fuel economy is calculated based on TAILPIPE EMISSIONS. Which is ridiculous. As I said in an older post, it's like measuring how tall someone is by weighing them.
Wouldn't most solid matter technically be frozen-- just having a higher freezing point than water? I'm sure there's a few odd solid-like things that aren't technically frozen for one reason or another, but I'm gonna play slashbot and scream "overreaching patent" at you.
Only fair that you'd get PDAs on the brain, as the iQue is also Garmin's GPS/PocketPC PDA. In fact, that's probably where your neurons got crosswired.
If you loved Tempest, Tempest 2000, and Tempest X, I *highly* recommend you pick up a copy of Rez. If you've got a PS2, I believe it's available. I played it on a dreamcast, which you can probably pick up on the cheap now, too.
Rez is the ultimate trippy techno space-shooter game, taking this sub-sub-sub-genre to another level altogether.
The moral I was trying for was: My definition of a crappy retailer and somebody else's most likely differ.
You get the same result by writing something nice like "Here's $20 to pick up a couple of books you like!"
Gift cards are a plague. A thoughtful note about what you think the money could be used for says as much about your effort (if not more) than picking up a plastic card from some random retailer. Which is more than likely just going to annoy the person when the local bookstore you bought it at doesn't have what they want, or charges too much for it. $20 goes a lot farther at Half-Price Books than it does at Borders.
Personally, I skip the Hallmark card, too. Those just say "I'm too lazy to write you a note. Here's some kittens." Get some nice stationary, and handwrite something to go with the cash. The whole thing will mean more to, be more useful, and purchase more for your recipient, all without letting some corporation earn interest on your gradually depreciating gift card purchase.
If there was sufficient juice to collapse into a black hole, the immense gravity might take care of reorienting the monkey's vision. We could also probably achieve the highly sought-after monkey-juice atomic fusion.
More realistically, we might also be able to submerge the monkey in juice. I suspect that the survival instinct outweighs the ass-staring instinct in most monkeys, with a moderate thousand-gallon juice investment, rather than the staggering quantity needed to form a black hole.
I think both quotes are correct, or close to it. They made quite a number of jokes of this variety in their various Hanz and Franz skits. I think it might even have been the Arnold episode with the "Listen to me know and believe me later" quote.
While I'm at it, YOUR post is untrue or very misleading. You said:
"The truth is that the frequency response curves for our primary color photo receptors PEAK at red, green and blue frequencies but the frequency response curves overlap extensively."
When in fact the receptors peak at yellowish-green, green, and blue. (559, 531, and 419nm, respectively) Red, Green, and Blue were chosen as a convenient set of primaries because of the relatively large gamut they represent from just three colors. To turn your accusation around, I doubt YOU have ever looked at a frequency response graph for the human eye.
Now, despite the fact that what you said was *factually* wrong, I think we can agree that the gist of your post was correct. The same was true of mine. Things are a great deal more complex than either you or I pointed out in any of our posts, and adding that information would have just confused people trying to understand how the screen worked.
Good point! Pantone should publish a "look what you've been missing" mini-version of their giant book that contains only colors that can't be represented with RGB. Then I could do dorky things like take pictures of them and compare the picture to the real thing.
"Emphasis added," indeed. Sorry if the wording was bad there-- I should have said "Our eyes have three types of color receptors" not "our eyes pick up three colors." Both are, however, true. Color does not equal frequency. We see millions of frequencies, but only three colors. Light falling into range for one of the receptor types, no matter what frequency, produces the same depolarization response from the receptor. End result? There are only three colors received by the brain from the eye. And "Some" was a poor choice, too. Sure, "millions" are "some," and the visible spectrum is a tiny part of the EM spectrum, but "infinitely many" is more descriptively accurate.
I know what misleading means. Are there three types of receptors in your eyes? Yes. Are they the reason we perceive color the way we do? Yes. Do they overlap significantly? Yes. I have looked at the graphs extensively. I have written colorspace conversion code.
I tried to be clear. It wasn't good enough for you, so I tender my humble apology.
Two of the peaks do overlap quite heavily. The third is significantly more isolated. If I simplified too much for you, I'm sorry. The whole point is that because there are three receptors, we can represent colors with just three colors chosen to fall into range for each of them, and that in addition to this-- because the receptors are not perfect single-frequency detectors, we also see the whole range of frequencies. This was my attempt to show 1. why RGB color works and 2. why it works imperfectly enough for ambient light to be an issue on a projector screen.
For the record, I don't think I was misleading. But I will try to be clear enough to appease even random nitpicking slashdotters in the future. While a few of my statements may seem misleading to you by themselves, I think that my post as a whole is quite clear.
Just in case you've misunderstood me... Definition: nitpicking
Please read more carefully. My original post said this several times, quite clearly:
"The color receptors are not perfectly isolated, but rather a sort of "bell curve" graph of sensitivity centered on a particular color, so there is some response outside the specific RGB wavelengths, although attenuated."
and here:
"So essentially, although we can SEE the ambient light at non-RGB frequencies, we only NEED to see the RGB frequencies from the projector to get a good representation of all the colors"
and here:
"Our eyes pick up three colors, but also some other wavelengths"
and here:
"Because our eyes' "RGB filters" aren't perfect, but rather a gradual curve, we see other frequencies of light."
and here:
"You may have noticed that if our eyes pick up more frequencies than are represented by RGB video, then RGB video must not be able to display all colors. This is absolutely correct-- the color gamut of RGB is smaller than that of the human eye."
I apologize if I didn't repeat it enough times for it to sink in for you, but I was quite clear that I was simplifying things in that example, and spent a whole paragraph using the fact you state (that our eyes see all frequencies rather than just RGB) to explain WHY it's necessary to reject the non-RGB light from the screen. It's like you didn't even read the post-- but I suppose this is slashdot.
FIVE TIMES, man. I said it FIVE TIMES.
Isn't AC97 basically CPU-driven audio?
I'm not normally one to get involved in console arguments, and I think these specs are fairly likely to be made-up. But just for the sake of what you're discussing here, didn't Nvidia include more advanced shader support in their xbox part than they had available in video cards available at the time?
Physiological only. You do not actually get true yellow mixing red and green.
Here's a quick link for reference.
For outdoor use on a laptop screen, you want a transflective display. I'm quite sure I saw a transmeta laptop with a transflective (rather than backlit) display at one point...
Ah, here it is.
Agreed, but from the minimal information in the article, this is the way it would have to work. Either the projector is built to output only the light that matches the screen, or we suffer a large decrease in brightness to gain a large improvement in contrast.