This proves that cellphone radiation actually interacts with matter in the brain... which is something to be afraid of, in my opinion.
Nono, this is GOOD effects, not bad ones. Cellphone radiation has no bad effects, none whatsoever, but it has lots of beneficial effects. While we're on the subject, I highly recommend the Revigator for greater health.
Any luck finding even an abstract? I looked ont he publisher's website but could only find a press release. I'm first wondering whether they even had a second circle of cages with an antenna in the center, but never turned on (and perhaps in a large Faraday cage). In the press release, they speculate about stimulation and blood flow from the EM, but this seems to warrant an experiment to determine its validity. As you say, it could simply be due to increased brain temperature. I mean, elevated temperature, differing things happening, duh!
Re:Lots of evidence for higher frame rates
on
Framerates Matter
·
· Score: 1
For the record (as an ex-LED-backlight hardware designer) the LED's are waaay too bright to run full-out, both visually and from a power usage and heat generation standpoint, and the only good way to dim an LED is by cycling it on and off rapidly to approximate the desired brightness.
I don't follow. Isn't an LED's brightness based on current, and the heat dissipation based on average power? Thus, you could run an LED at 20 mA continuously, or at 40 mA pulsed at 50% duty cycle, and have the same average brightness and power. Of course the latter will probably look brighter to a human, since I understand perception to be based partly on the peak brightness. I think it's why LED tail lights run pulsed instead of continuous.
There IS of course the other issue of the driver being much easier to make using a variable duty cycle rather than adjusting the drive current, I'll grant that. With variably duty cycle, you can use a saturated transistor, so it's either fully on or completely off, thus little dissipated power due to resistance. And generating the pulse drive waveform is trivial, and easy to adjust the duty cycle of.
Re:Lots of evidence for higher frame rates
on
Framerates Matter
·
· Score: 1
Except that newer LCDs have LED backlighting which is no longer constant, but flashed (WHY? WHY? WHY? Just to save some power? Please, computer manufacturers, let *me* make that decision!), so the experience is somewhat more like a CRT.
Even an LCD with zero lag (i.e. 0 msec GTG performance) and a backlight that's constantly on looks blurry when things move and you follow them with your eye. An LCD with 0 msec GTG and an LED backlight that pulses ONCE per frame will not have that blur as you follow the object with your eyes. This is similar to how a CRT has much less blur for the same situation, because as you note, the phosphor is only brightly lit for a very small part of the refresh.
When you follow the moving object with your eyes, your eyes move smoothly, even though the object is jumping to a new position every 1/60 second. If the object only flashes for a short time at each new position, the flash is always at the center of your vision. If the object is shown for each entire frame, it gets smeared across the center of your eyes, since your eyes are constantly moving during the entire frame. Thus, until LCDs flash the backlight for a short duration only ONCE per frame, there will be motion blur for human viewers (unless the viewer fixes his eyes on a point and never moves them).
Entirely different, or rather, you're comparing something that's over 700 times the rate. Give me a video game and I'll tell you in two seconds with 99% reliability whether it's 30 or 60 FPS, and after a few seconds whether it's 30 or less than 30 (Zelda Ocarina of Time, I'm looking at you!). The real question is what sort of mood the rate sets; I think having the Zelda games at 60 might not look so great, but having something like Metroid Prime or God of War at 30 would be noticeably inferior.
The real news here doesn't appear to be that endogenization has occured through our past [...] but instead that a virus, bornavirus, is displaying this property.
Are you sure it's not a bornagainvirus? That would explain the intelligent design at work here.
Moral of the story? In your rush to fix one problem, make sure you don't create an even bigger one.
Indeed. When you find a problem and develop a fix, you are faced with a choice: continue using the old system with mostly known problems and possibly known workarounds, or use the patched system that has one of the known problems fixed, but might have new unknown problems, possibly more severe than the old known problem, and possibly without any workarounds.
new optical disc evaluation technology that increases capacity from 25GB to 33.4GB
Unfortunately, they also announced that this 33% space increase will be used by their new DECE encryption, "delivering greater flexibility, value, and security to consumers, without any extra cost, just a free firmware upgrade".
2009 in BCD is 0x20 0x09. Interpreted as binary, that's 8201. Or you're saying that they idiotically AGAIN omitted the century count, shortening it to two digits again? That's what I'd call careless.
How should I go about being discreet about this math, though? Should I avoid writing it on paper, ever? I bet discreet math would be valuable to the various intelligence agencies, because they need to do everything discreetly.
Yeah, so with the year 2000, we had ALL FOUR digits changing: 1999->2000, so any assumptions about the leading three being fixed would be broken. But a problem when the freaking tens digit increments?!? That's amazing carelessness. "Bah, the ones digit will never generate a carry in my lifetime!"
The question is then whether investing money in these technologies is the most effective way of reducing physical attacks, given how utterly rare the events are in proportion to the number of people coming through.
Why not let PDFs only display documents, and rely on web forms for submitting information? No? Too simple?
I propose we make a new read-only document format that's portable between machines. We could call it PRODF. We could also require that any format updates are backwards compatible with previous readers, so that the user doesn't have to update his &%(*% reader every month just to be able to read a document (hence the name "portable").
Apparently HP could use this in the HP LCD I'm using, which shows 99999 backlight hours (even though the display was manufactured less than a year ago).
Fascinating about the Bailey-Borwein-Plouffe formula for quickly generating an arbitrary digit of pi. Reading the FAQ, he doesn't offer the entire series of PI, but does offer excerpts. The devil's advocate in me can't help but point out that he could have prepared these excerpts using the above formula, rather than actually calculating pi to that many places. I suppose even if he did offer the entire result, nobody could verify it except by generating it himself.
Consumers, the industry believes, could balk at buying digital movies and TV shows until they can bring their collections with them wherever they go -- by and large the same freedom people have with DVDs.
In the last year and a half, a broad alliance of high-tech companies and Hollywood studios has been trying to address this problem through an organization called the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem, or DECE. Five of the six major Hollywood studios (Warner Brothers, NBC Universal, Sony, Paramount and Fox, but not Walt Disney) are involved, with Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Comcast, Intel and Best Buy.
Remember, these difficulties are from them wanting information to behave like limited physical objects. Every step they have to negate information's greatest advantages over physical objects, in order to maintain artificial scarcity. Those who haven't shackled themselves would never need a "broad alliance of high-tech companies and Hollywood studios" to address the problem, since it wouldn't even exist. We already have video encoding standards, and storage medium standards, so we can move video among all our devices. The only problem is that it's too easy. It's insane that their problem is that something is too useful, and they consider crippling the technology to be creating value.
Morpheus: This is the construct. It's our loading program. We can load anything from clothing, to equipment, weapons, training simulations, anything we need. But if you want to read a Science article linked from Slashdot, you'll have to get on the bus and nip down to the local library
Oh, come on, you can't expect us to be able to computerize everything! Accessing magazine articles online has been a very tough problem to solve, due to the inherent difficulties in the process. Enjoy the advances we have made.
I've always wondered why so many slashdot readers feel entitled to someone else's hard work for nothing.
We are able to see the essential difference between stealing the basket of apples a man spent the afternoon picking, and making a copy of a music file. The former deprives the man of a basket of apples. The latter deprives him of nothing, for he wouldn't even know the copy was made since there would be nothing missing from his possession.
Damn, Comcast etc. are going to hate this! Imagine all that unused bandwidth each month, under the 250GB or whatever cap. The city will be able to give free internet access to all residents with this unclaimed bandwidth.
It is perfectly legal for a company or individual to give away their work and find some other way to make money with it. Intellectual property laws do not stop this.
Indeed, but they are still hampered in their competition with the subsidized artifical scarcity system the other companies use. Imagine how much better the examples you cited would do if the other players couldn't fall back on the taxpayer-funded system. And what of the systems being put in place to block transfer of content unless it's on a pay-to-be-on-it whitelist, with legal requirements to implement them? The IP guys are actively fighting people who don't use IP, and they are avoiding having to pay for their systems, so they beat the other guys. Also, like I said, companies cannot opt out of the IP game; they're still open to being sued, even if they didn't use anyone else's IP. Many companies have patent portfolios for defensive purposes, kind of like countries with nuclear weapons.
Slashdot Mirror
Nono, this is GOOD effects, not bad ones. Cellphone radiation has no bad effects, none whatsoever, but it has lots of beneficial effects. While we're on the subject, I highly recommend the Revigator for greater health.
Any luck finding even an abstract? I looked ont he publisher's website but could only find a press release. I'm first wondering whether they even had a second circle of cages with an antenna in the center, but never turned on (and perhaps in a large Faraday cage). In the press release, they speculate about stimulation and blood flow from the EM, but this seems to warrant an experiment to determine its validity. As you say, it could simply be due to increased brain temperature. I mean, elevated temperature, differing things happening, duh!
I don't follow. Isn't an LED's brightness based on current, and the heat dissipation based on average power? Thus, you could run an LED at 20 mA continuously, or at 40 mA pulsed at 50% duty cycle, and have the same average brightness and power. Of course the latter will probably look brighter to a human, since I understand perception to be based partly on the peak brightness. I think it's why LED tail lights run pulsed instead of continuous.
There IS of course the other issue of the driver being much easier to make using a variable duty cycle rather than adjusting the drive current, I'll grant that. With variably duty cycle, you can use a saturated transistor, so it's either fully on or completely off, thus little dissipated power due to resistance. And generating the pulse drive waveform is trivial, and easy to adjust the duty cycle of.
Even an LCD with zero lag (i.e. 0 msec GTG performance) and a backlight that's constantly on looks blurry when things move and you follow them with your eye. An LCD with 0 msec GTG and an LED backlight that pulses ONCE per frame will not have that blur as you follow the object with your eyes. This is similar to how a CRT has much less blur for the same situation, because as you note, the phosphor is only brightly lit for a very small part of the refresh.
When you follow the moving object with your eyes, your eyes move smoothly, even though the object is jumping to a new position every 1/60 second. If the object only flashes for a short time at each new position, the flash is always at the center of your vision. If the object is shown for each entire frame, it gets smeared across the center of your eyes, since your eyes are constantly moving during the entire frame. Thus, until LCDs flash the backlight for a short duration only ONCE per frame, there will be motion blur for human viewers (unless the viewer fixes his eyes on a point and never moves them).
Entirely different, or rather, you're comparing something that's over 700 times the rate. Give me a video game and I'll tell you in two seconds with 99% reliability whether it's 30 or 60 FPS, and after a few seconds whether it's 30 or less than 30 (Zelda Ocarina of Time, I'm looking at you!). The real question is what sort of mood the rate sets; I think having the Zelda games at 60 might not look so great, but having something like Metroid Prime or God of War at 30 would be noticeably inferior.
Are you sure it's not a bornagainvirus? That would explain the intelligent design at work here.
Indeed. When you find a problem and develop a fix, you are faced with a choice: continue using the old system with mostly known problems and possibly known workarounds, or use the patched system that has one of the known problems fixed, but might have new unknown problems, possibly more severe than the old known problem, and possibly without any workarounds.
Unfortunately, they also announced that this 33% space increase will be used by their new DECE encryption, "delivering greater flexibility, value, and security to consumers, without any extra cost, just a free firmware upgrade".
2009 in BCD is 0x20 0x09. Interpreted as binary, that's 8201. Or you're saying that they idiotically AGAIN omitted the century count, shortening it to two digits again? That's what I'd call careless.
How should I go about being discreet about this math, though? Should I avoid writing it on paper, ever? I bet discreet math would be valuable to the various intelligence agencies, because they need to do everything discreetly.
Yeah, so with the year 2000, we had ALL FOUR digits changing: 1999->2000, so any assumptions about the leading three being fixed would be broken. But a problem when the freaking tens digit increments?!? That's amazing carelessness. "Bah, the ones digit will never generate a carry in my lifetime!"
Oh come on, they were just running their unit tests, specifically DangerousTestSuite::testExplosivesOn8Travelers().
The question is then whether investing money in these technologies is the most effective way of reducing physical attacks, given how utterly rare the events are in proportion to the number of people coming through.
I propose we make a new read-only document format that's portable between machines. We could call it PRODF. We could also require that any format updates are backwards compatible with previous readers, so that the user doesn't have to update his &%(*% reader every month just to be able to read a document (hence the name "portable").
Apparently HP could use this in the HP LCD I'm using, which shows 99999 backlight hours (even though the display was manufactured less than a year ago).
Fascinating about the Bailey-Borwein-Plouffe formula for quickly generating an arbitrary digit of pi. Reading the FAQ, he doesn't offer the entire series of PI, but does offer excerpts. The devil's advocate in me can't help but point out that he could have prepared these excerpts using the above formula, rather than actually calculating pi to that many places. I suppose even if he did offer the entire result, nobody could verify it except by generating it himself.
Remember, these difficulties are from them wanting information to behave like limited physical objects. Every step they have to negate information's greatest advantages over physical objects, in order to maintain artificial scarcity. Those who haven't shackled themselves would never need a "broad alliance of high-tech companies and Hollywood studios" to address the problem, since it wouldn't even exist. We already have video encoding standards, and storage medium standards, so we can move video among all our devices. The only problem is that it's too easy. It's insane that their problem is that something is too useful, and they consider crippling the technology to be creating value.
"...with a low carbon footprint..."
I think you mean copyright.
Oh, come on, you can't expect us to be able to computerize everything! Accessing magazine articles online has been a very tough problem to solve, due to the inherent difficulties in the process. Enjoy the advances we have made.
Wait a minute, you're complaining that you can't RTFA? You must be new here.
Oh, you mean something like blurring or mirroring images on websites viewed over an open WiFi access point?
We are able to see the essential difference between stealing the basket of apples a man spent the afternoon picking, and making a copy of a music file. The former deprives the man of a basket of apples. The latter deprives him of nothing, for he wouldn't even know the copy was made since there would be nothing missing from his possession.
Damn, Comcast etc. are going to hate this! Imagine all that unused bandwidth each month, under the 250GB or whatever cap. The city will be able to give free internet access to all residents with this unclaimed bandwidth.
Indeed, but they are still hampered in their competition with the subsidized artifical scarcity system the other companies use. Imagine how much better the examples you cited would do if the other players couldn't fall back on the taxpayer-funded system. And what of the systems being put in place to block transfer of content unless it's on a pay-to-be-on-it whitelist, with legal requirements to implement them? The IP guys are actively fighting people who don't use IP, and they are avoiding having to pay for their systems, so they beat the other guys. Also, like I said, companies cannot opt out of the IP game; they're still open to being sued, even if they didn't use anyone else's IP. Many companies have patent portfolios for defensive purposes, kind of like countries with nuclear weapons.