Something else unfamiliar will be the low noise level and, unique for a racing engine, the smooth running of the engine. At high speeds, the engine cannot be heard from the open cockpit and there is hardly any vibration. Indeed, the new R10 can only be recognized as diesel-powered during the warm-up or in the pit lane. Its exhaust will also be invisible since a pair of diesel particulate filters are fitted. And unlike spark-ignition racing engines, there are no flashes of flame from the exhaust created by unburned fuel.
In a radio report about this car, a journalist said that it was so quite, it could be driving through a suburban neighborhood, and nobody would call the police. Describing it as eery to see it go by vs the other, much louder, gasoline cars.
But let me just ask you this, to perhaps clear things up: do you think a movie of a car moving at 300km/h will show motion blur in each individual frame? What if the movie were shot using a high speed camera, say, 100,000 frames per second? Would individual frames show any motion blur then? I don't think they would. Yet, when shown, I do believe the eye would see motion blur.
We disagree here, but it doesn't mean your wrong.
If said movie was played on a 20 inch display at 2 feet away i don't think it would. If it were played at 100,000 FPS on a screen significantly wider than my field of view, I believe it would.
I'm saying that things on the monitor are scaled down when displayed to you.
So even though the car moves at 300km/h at scale, in reality is is moving by much slower on your monitor.
If we measure things as apparent inches/second at 1 foot away, the monitor has things moving at less of them than real life.
In a racing game, take the width of your windshield as a reference (http://img186.imageshack.us/i/streetchllngeexv8e2d462ic2.jpg/), on my monitor that would make the width of my hood 12 inches or so if my face was a foot away (small monitor). In real life the width of my hood is wider than my entire field of vision. So a rapidly moving piece of debris flying over my hood is moving across my field of vision much faster in real life than in a game.
If things are measured in fields of vision, games are scaled down very much from real life, thus no motion blur.
It probably still only makes sense in my head though.
It was never meant to be anything more than a way to view mainly static documents, and quickly access other linked documents.
You are wrong wrong wrong. For many years now the browser has been meant for more than that. It originally may not have been meant for more than that, but to say it never was is stupid. The reason MS panicked about it was there was an express intent of making the browser more than that.
I have to agree on that. I think the best part of the Newton was that it could be treated like (by design) a sketch pad. It was something I felt all other PDA's were lacking.
Also, the fact that it was fax oriented was pretty cute, but I bought mine years after the end of life as a novelty.
And unfortunately, most developers have little regard for the difference between USER and ROOT (or equivalent).
This is very very true. If they did running as a non-admin would be much easier. I have some trade software that still requires it, but very simple stuff (document display).
My internet and stays on with no power. Comcast cable modems have a battery back-up (the ones that are ready for digital voice), my router is on a UPS, and my laptop has a battery. I can use the internet when the power goes out, and if I had digital voice it would work too (without a UPS even).
I will say that over-all Comcast internet is less reliable than POTS, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with power-outages.
It's really really awkward interface (voice has some issues too IMO, but is much further along).
I would not want everyone to be feeling the frustrations of wave, were I google. It would be stillborn. Let it slowly grow with people somewhat interested, allowing the infrastructure to scale with use too.
The amount of time / effort / money I've saved over the years due to buggy and crashing computer software is staggering.
I really think articles like these ignore the simple fact that time is saved, not lost due to the buggy software, simply not as much as perfect software would save.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no hard rule on this, and both can be ambiguous in different circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma
Everybody knows the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.
Don't be a fool.
I select all, right click, and select rename-it from my context menu.
The benefit is I get a live preview of my renaming, if I am doing something fancy.
Don't computers only use a watt or two to sleep?
200+ when booting?
Waking from hibernate would then be worth over 2-hours of sleep (vs waking from sleep), and waking from shutdown even longer.
Something else unfamiliar will be the low noise level and, unique for a racing engine, the smooth running of the engine. At high speeds, the engine cannot be heard from the open cockpit and there is hardly any vibration. Indeed, the new R10 can only be recognized as diesel-powered during the warm-up or in the pit lane. Its exhaust will also be invisible since a pair of diesel particulate filters are fitted. And unlike spark-ignition racing engines, there are no flashes of flame from the exhaust created by unburned fuel.
from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FZX/is_6_72/ai_n16521075/.
In a radio report about this car, a journalist said that it was so quite, it could be driving through a suburban neighborhood, and nobody would call the police. Describing it as eery to see it go by vs the other, much louder, gasoline cars.
Firefox and IE simply place a small banner at the top of the screen, letting you know you are missing a plugin.
Do Chrome and Safari do it differently?
But let me just ask you this, to perhaps clear things up: do you think a movie of a car moving at 300km/h will show motion blur in each individual frame? What if the movie were shot using a high speed camera, say, 100,000 frames per second? Would individual frames show any motion blur then? I don't think they would. Yet, when shown, I do believe the eye would see motion blur.
We disagree here, but it doesn't mean your wrong.
If said movie was played on a 20 inch display at 2 feet away i don't think it would. If it were played at 100,000 FPS on a screen significantly wider than my field of view, I believe it would.
I'm saying that things on the monitor are scaled down when displayed to you.
So even though the car moves at 300km/h at scale, in reality is is moving by much slower on your monitor.
If we measure things as apparent inches/second at 1 foot away, the monitor has things moving at less of them than real life.
In a racing game, take the width of your windshield as a reference (http://img186.imageshack.us/i/streetchllngeexv8e2d462ic2.jpg/), on my monitor that would make the width of my hood 12 inches or so if my face was a foot away (small monitor). In real life the width of my hood is wider than my entire field of vision. So a rapidly moving piece of debris flying over my hood is moving across my field of vision much faster in real life than in a game.
If things are measured in fields of vision, games are scaled down very much from real life, thus no motion blur.
It probably still only makes sense in my head though.
because they are taxing people within their state, for consuming things within their state?
Scale.
The car next to you is a few inches long on screen, in real life it appears much bigger.
So if the car moves x number of car lengths a second, in real life you may get blur, but on screen your eye can cope with it.
I am willing to be that no amount of frame-rate will get natural motion blur in a game.
A car crossing your entire screen is not crossing your entire field of vision.
I don't know if it used motion blur, but F-zero GX did feel really fast when playing it, most games not as much to me.
If you use sites that advertise through them you *are* getting something in return though.
Anywhere you go that google tracks you, they are paying someone for the privilege to track you, that someone provides you a service with that money.
It was never meant to be anything more than a way to view mainly static documents, and quickly access other linked documents.
You are wrong wrong wrong. For many years now the browser has been meant for more than that. It originally may not have been meant for more than that, but to say it never was is stupid. The reason MS panicked about it was there was an express intent of making the browser more than that.
Mozilla too.
Screw handwriting recognition
I have to agree on that. I think the best part of the Newton was that it could be treated like (by design) a sketch pad. It was something I felt all other PDA's were lacking.
Also, the fact that it was fax oriented was pretty cute, but I bought mine years after the end of life as a novelty.
ahhh, the good old days of websites.
Used to be able to set your prices too.
pcdecrapifier takes time.
I Would be hard pressed to bill under $40 to do it for someone, of course, deleting the shortcuts on the desktop is a different thing entirely.
I'm curious what Wired said about .com you find so offensive?
From my perspective, Consumer Smart Phones, Social Networking, and Online Retailers, pretty much make the promises of .com real IMO.
I was specifically referring to the Transcendence victory.
Really, because I seem to recall ultimate victory by becoming one with the collective consciousness.
And as portrayed by the "efficiency" attribute of a leader, the ones that worked with the planet dominated hard too (late game).
And unfortunately, most developers have little regard for the difference between USER and ROOT (or equivalent).
This is very very true. If they did running as a non-admin would be much easier. I have some trade software that still requires it, but very simple stuff (document display).
My internet and stays on with no power. Comcast cable modems have a battery back-up (the ones that are ready for digital voice), my router is on a UPS, and my laptop has a battery. I can use the internet when the power goes out, and if I had digital voice it would work too (without a UPS even).
I will say that over-all Comcast internet is less reliable than POTS, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with power-outages.
My data is a separate plan, like texts with T-Mobile.
Android unlimited data and 400 messages is $25 + your voice plan.
Have you used wave?
It's really really awkward interface (voice has some issues too IMO, but is much further along).
I would not want everyone to be feeling the frustrations of wave, were I google. It would be stillborn. Let it slowly grow with people somewhat interested, allowing the infrastructure to scale with use too.
The amount of time / effort / money I've saved over the years due to buggy and crashing computer software is staggering.
I really think articles like these ignore the simple fact that time is saved, not lost due to the buggy software, simply not as much as perfect software would save.
On slashdot?