Even the Nazis got this right! With only a few glaring exceptions (most of which involved the SS) the Wehrmacht conducted themselves in a civil manner throughout the conflict and treated civilians and our POWs as well as could be expected. The Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine were similarly well behaved.
If even the Nazis are capable of conducting war in a mostly civil manner, we should be capable of the same.
Right, except for the whole genocide thing. Which I would assume involved the mistreatment of large numbers of civilians, more or less by definition.
Or is that "as well as could be expected" for you?
Leo Gold: "Don’t believe me? It’s all in the numbers. For a hundred years, there’s been a conspiracy of plutocrats against ordinary people."
JC Denton: "Do you have a single fact to back that up?"
Leo Gold: "Number one: In 1945, corporations paid 50 percent of federal taxes. Now they pay about 5 percent. Number two: in 1900, 90 percent of Americans were self-employed; now it’s about two percent."
JC Denton: "So?"
Leo Gold: "It’s called consolidation. Strengthen governments and corporations, weaken individuals. With taxes, this can be done imperceptibly over time."
We can cure colorblindness genetically because we know what the "normal" gene for that region looks like. We don't have similar information about IR or UV vision.
Besides which, your eyes would probably need to be a different size to work very far outside the visual spectrum. It's not genetics, it's physics. But I can get you a good deal on cybernetic replacement eyes if you still want that IR/UV vision.
Wow, flashback from early 2008. Okay, firstly, "if" is not really an issue. It works fine. Also, not a very good article. There are a number of articles about Prof. Parviz's work at this point, most of which are much better. Try the UW News or IEEE Spectrum articles for starters (the first is a good summary, the second is more in-depth).
As to "if their research proves successful" - again, it works fine. The main issue right now is that the existing prototype is a low-budget / small-scale version...in short, it's at the "please insert more funding to continue" stage. As in, the only thing stopping them from building decently high-resolution wireless solar-powered contact lens displays right now is the need for more money to actually build the things. The know-how is pretty much all there.
The summary overlooks some important points in the article, thereby giving a completely different take-home message. For example: "The good Avatar 3D experience happened because James Cameron is a technically savvy director, and thus the 3D aspect of Avatar was technically well executed. When done right it allows the viewer to more seamlessly enjoy a 3D film."
The author is not arguing that 3D is a scam. The author is arguing that people are jumping on the 3D bandwagon because they smell money while not always delivering a good product. Specifically:
* Retrofitting 2D movies for 3D does not work. You can fake it, but the result is crappy if you didn't actually shoot it for 3D.
* There's no point to using 3D if you're not going to use it creatively. The result will be worse than if you just kept your mediocre movie in 2D.
* The quality of the result is strongly affected by the quality of the 3D implementation.
And that's all, folks. It's a good article to read if you're not familiar with the issues.
I don't know about that. I've corrected examples where a physical equation was off in a way that would have made the universe uninhabitable. Other articles made conclusions based on data cited from another Wikipedia article...but copied the data incorrectly, used the bad copy to make the conclusions first-hand, and ended up directly contradicting the parent article on both points.
Of course, you'd have to find new examples now - which is Wikipedia's real redeeming property. But what counts as "REALLY wrong" varies a lot by topic and by what you want to use the information for. If you're not browsing casually, errors are going to veer off in any old direction - there's not some principle in operation which statistically makes errors "mostly harmless."
Easy. Like other recent Bethesda RPG projects, there will probably be a mod kit. Want the game to behave more like Demon's Souls and less like a traditional modern western RPG? You can make a mod for that.
Extensibility very nearly always beats what you can come up with in-house.
"But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor."
Wait, MPAA/RIAA? Since when do they deal with fake iPods? I hate them as much as the next guy, but I can't find a word in the article relating to copyrights that wasn't inserted by the author.
Obama's speech (as quoted by TFA) seems to relate only to patents and perhaps branded goods, even if ACTA extends to both. It would be interesting to know if this is indicative of an official focus with regard to ACTA.
Different people will have different ideas of tiny, of course. My definition is motivated by my estimation of the cost/benefit ratio, and by what we could be doing if it was more of a priority. The payoff is very good relative to things which we spend much more on, and it should scale well if treated as a higher priority.
Access to health care is still a big problem in the USA. But huge swaths of modern medicine are the result of human space travel. It's hard to find anything today that isn't in some way reliant on space-related research.
I'm not saying that postponing a manned return to the Moon is catastrophic by itself - but we depend on space travel for so much today that scaling back our efforts there amounts to saving pennies today (NASA's budget is a tiny drop in the federal budget!) by throwing away potentially massive results tomorrow. And this is aside from how important exploration is in purely human terms.
Slashdot Mirror
Even the Nazis got this right! With only a few glaring exceptions (most of which involved the SS) the Wehrmacht conducted themselves in a civil manner throughout the conflict and treated civilians and our POWs as well as could be expected. The Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine were similarly well behaved.
If even the Nazis are capable of conducting war in a mostly civil manner, we should be capable of the same.
Right, except for the whole genocide thing. Which I would assume involved the mistreatment of large numbers of civilians, more or less by definition.
Or is that "as well as could be expected" for you?
Leo Gold: "Don’t believe me? It’s all in the numbers. For a hundred years, there’s been a conspiracy of plutocrats against ordinary people."
JC Denton: "Do you have a single fact to back that up?"
Leo Gold: "Number one: In 1945, corporations paid 50 percent of federal taxes. Now they pay about 5 percent. Number two: in 1900, 90 percent of Americans were self-employed; now it’s about two percent."
JC Denton: "So?"
Leo Gold: "It’s called consolidation. Strengthen governments and corporations, weaken individuals. With taxes, this can be done imperceptibly over time."
Fictional conspiracies aside - WTF?
We can cure colorblindness genetically because we know what the "normal" gene for that region looks like. We don't have similar information about IR or UV vision.
Besides which, your eyes would probably need to be a different size to work very far outside the visual spectrum. It's not genetics, it's physics. But I can get you a good deal on cybernetic replacement eyes if you still want that IR/UV vision.
Wow, flashback from early 2008. Okay, firstly, "if" is not really an issue. It works fine. Also, not a very good article. There are a number of articles about Prof. Parviz's work at this point, most of which are much better. Try the UW News or IEEE Spectrum articles for starters (the first is a good summary, the second is more in-depth).
As to "if their research proves successful" - again, it works fine. The main issue right now is that the existing prototype is a low-budget / small-scale version...in short, it's at the "please insert more funding to continue" stage. As in, the only thing stopping them from building decently high-resolution wireless solar-powered contact lens displays right now is the need for more money to actually build the things. The know-how is pretty much all there.
The summary overlooks some important points in the article, thereby giving a completely different take-home message. For example: "The good Avatar 3D experience happened because James Cameron is a technically savvy director, and thus the 3D aspect of Avatar was technically well executed. When done right it allows the viewer to more seamlessly enjoy a 3D film."
The author is not arguing that 3D is a scam. The author is arguing that people are jumping on the 3D bandwagon because they smell money while not always delivering a good product. Specifically:
* Retrofitting 2D movies for 3D does not work. You can fake it, but the result is crappy if you didn't actually shoot it for 3D.
* There's no point to using 3D if you're not going to use it creatively. The result will be worse than if you just kept your mediocre movie in 2D.
* The quality of the result is strongly affected by the quality of the 3D implementation.
And that's all, folks. It's a good article to read if you're not familiar with the issues.
I don't know about that. I've corrected examples where a physical equation was off in a way that would have made the universe uninhabitable. Other articles made conclusions based on data cited from another Wikipedia article...but copied the data incorrectly, used the bad copy to make the conclusions first-hand, and ended up directly contradicting the parent article on both points.
Of course, you'd have to find new examples now - which is Wikipedia's real redeeming property. But what counts as "REALLY wrong" varies a lot by topic and by what you want to use the information for. If you're not browsing casually, errors are going to veer off in any old direction - there's not some principle in operation which statistically makes errors "mostly harmless."
How will Bethesda top Demon's Souls?
Easy. Like other recent Bethesda RPG projects, there will probably be a mod kit. Want the game to behave more like Demon's Souls and less like a traditional modern western RPG? You can make a mod for that.
Extensibility very nearly always beats what you can come up with in-house.
"But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor."
Wait, MPAA/RIAA? Since when do they deal with fake iPods? I hate them as much as the next guy, but I can't find a word in the article relating to copyrights that wasn't inserted by the author.
Obama's speech (as quoted by TFA) seems to relate only to patents and perhaps branded goods, even if ACTA extends to both. It would be interesting to know if this is indicative of an official focus with regard to ACTA.
It works out to about half a percent. Data.
Different people will have different ideas of tiny, of course. My definition is motivated by my estimation of the cost/benefit ratio, and by what we could be doing if it was more of a priority. The payoff is very good relative to things which we spend much more on, and it should scale well if treated as a higher priority.
Access to health care is still a big problem in the USA. But huge swaths of modern medicine are the result of human space travel. It's hard to find anything today that isn't in some way reliant on space-related research.
Further Research.
I'm not saying that postponing a manned return to the Moon is catastrophic by itself - but we depend on space travel for so much today that scaling back our efforts there amounts to saving pennies today (NASA's budget is a tiny drop in the federal budget!) by throwing away potentially massive results tomorrow. And this is aside from how important exploration is in purely human terms.
Firing the guy will absolutely convince the public that you've fixed your security problems.
To get more out of ARToolKit, try adding osgART so you can use OpenSceneGraph.