Actually, movies are run at twice that, i.e. in order to reduce the flickering each frame is projected twice. And 48Hz is just barely acceptable for straight on viewing. You'll see the flicker clearly out of the corner of your eye.
Got any references to back that up? Everything I've ever seen says movie projectors run at 24 fps (see HowStuffWorks for example). A movie projector doesn't refresh an image like a CRT - the light source is always on, displaying whatever is on the film in front of it. So you can't really project each frame twice anyway, it's projected for exactly how long it's in front of the light for (1/24th of a second minus transport time). Any perceived flicker in movie projection is due to the border between frames of film, not the light source going on and off.
That's all very well provided you're immortal and young. However to date improvements to life expectancy haven't really resulted in more time for people at the prime of life, but rather more years of old age. What's the point of living to 150 if you're basically decrepit from the age of 70 or 80?
What annoys me is that the chosen assignment of letters to number keys is horribly inefficient due to the requirement of backwards compatibility to word numbers (but even that's not a good excuse because a phone could allow people to dial word numbers as word numbers). To get an E you need to press 3 twice, to get a O you have press 6 three times, to get an S you have to press 7 four times!
If the letters were assigned by frequency it'd be a lot quicker to use once you get used to the layout. Something like:
I have no specific opinion on how viable Open Source software sales can or should be, but a sample size of one success is hardly scientific proof that it is a viable business for others to get into...
Actually it is. It's working for RedHat so it's clearly a viable business model and it can work for others. Whether a specific company can execute it sucessfully is another matter but the business model is proven in the conditions that exist at this time.
It's not too hard: the scale treats chance of collision as more significant than consequences of collision. Bascially 2-4 represent very low chance of collision, 5-7 represent significant chance of collision, and 8-10 represent certain collision. Within those ranges the lowest number is the is for events with less significant consequences and the highest number is for more significant consequences.
The damage is very hard to determine without knowing precisely where an object will hit. Since even a small object could cause massive casualties and destruction if it were to hit a city the primary factor has to be the chance of collision. This is how the Torino scale works.
Maybe for the SUV occupants, and even then it's debatable. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that they have higher single car accident rates (with more severe results), and are less safe than cars in accidents involving other large vehicles. They are safer in an accident with a car, but only at the cost of a vasting increased danger to occupants of the other vehicle.
A fusion bomb is just a fission bomb surrounding a dense deuterium/tritium core. Typically spherical to provide an even "squeeze" on the D/T mix. Blast plates push the plutonium together (of which the ciritcal mass is already widely known). It goes boom, crushing the D/T core with force beyond that found even in the sun. The core has nowhere to go, so it immediately fuses a good portion of its mass. The resulting secondary blast is even bigger than the fission explosion and gives us a really big boom.
You sound very knowledgeable but infact you're just repeating a popular simplified model of how a fusion weapon works. Read that howstuffworks.com article linked a couple of posts up and you'll see that your idea of how these things works is not very close to the reality.
No one is going to by a CD-R. They look cheap. And they often sound cheap. They sometimes won't play in some players (and not at all in older DVD players), they wear out, and they're much more suceptible to scratches. If you want to sell CD's and not be laughed at, you have to get it mastered and pressed.
You give people the option of a CD at $12-15 or a nicely done CD-R at $8 and you'll see what people will and won't buy. I'm betting the CD-Rs will be very popular.
This is unusual because this involves the theft of two servers for the top security mainframe room of a secure customs facility at an international airport. It's a bit different to lax security at a small company with a single administrator.
What are you talking about? I don't see how the lack of interoperability is any benefit to the consumer. When you sell something to the public you list features that are beneficial to the public, not "features" which are beneficial to the manufacturer or some other third party.
Three years ago, they matched a prototype of this car against a Ferarri, a Corvette, a Miata and a Porche Carerra on a 1/8 mile drag strip. It beat, by 7 lengths, all of these except the Miata. The only reason the Miata won was because the driver of the T-Zero forgot to disengage the hand brake.
Have you got a reference for this? It sounds dodgy, a rigged test at best, and the hand brake especially urban legend-like. Miata's are not that quick, something like 9s 0-60 and 17s 1/4 mile. It's not going to beat many Ferraris or Porsches. But then I notice you don't say which Ferrari, Porsche, and Corvette. And 1/8 mile is not a normal performance measure, 1/4 is the typical test.
The website claims 0-60mph in 4.1s and 1/4 mile in 13.2s. Very good. For comparison: A Corvette Z06 does 3.9 and 12.4, and many Porsche 911 Turbos can manage sub-4s 0-60 and sub-12s 1/4 miles. A number of Ferraris manage the 1/4 mile in less than 13s, though few have 0-60 accelerations of less than 4s (For example: 360 Spider: 4.5, 12.7, 575M Maranello: 4.2, 12.3).
Actually, 2^128 possibilities dictates that you can expect to try 2^127 different files (assuming pure brute force and the law of averages). This would take *signifigantly* longer than 2^64...in particular, about 2^63 times longer.
You're both wrong. This is basically the birthday problem on a grand scale. Using one of the approximations for P2(n,d), it looks like 2^97 files would give a 63% probability of a collision. It's still not practical though.
Meta-moderation does not work well for the "redundant" moderation. It requires too much work and too much context to verify. "Funny" is similar. Most funny things lose their humor when repeated too much, but a meta-moderator may not have seen it before as often as you or I have.
In reference to the McDonalds ridiculous law suit:
Scald burns are well known to be superficial since they imply a burn from a hot fluid mainly composed of water which cools rather fast. Hence, they only affect the skin in a superficial way, that is at the most, superficial second degree burns. Never down to subcutaneus tissues such as fat or muscle.
She had third degree burns to 6% of her body. You are clearly wrong. Read the case.
You obviously haven't read the evidence in that case.
you can adjust the temperature of the coffee using a sophisticated patent-pending technique called "BLOWING and STIRRING" or "adding code water or ice".
Not very effectiive given that the coffee was in a cup with a lid. Which she was trying to remove in order to add cream and sugar.
I've personally had boiling hot water fall on my entire hand. It hurt like hell and it was very red and sore for a week and took another week to completely disappear, but it most definitely did *not* leave third degree burns or any permanent marks.
Clearly you treated it immediately (cold water). She was not able to do so. The fabric of her clothes held the coffee against her skin and at the 180 degrees F (the temp the coffee was served at) third degree burns will occur in 2 to 7 seconds. In her case she had third degree burns over 6% of her body which required skin grafts.
Two facts were probably most significant in the jury finding McD's 80% responsible for the accident and awarding such high punitive damages: that their coffee was significantly hotter than other establishments', and that they had 700 complaints over the prior 10 year period so they clearly knew the dangers.
Last Thursday in the wake of the Blaster worm I ran Windows Update on a NT4 machine. One of the hotfixes it applied (823803) screwed up the RAS subsystem which resulted in IE5.5 crashing whenever it attempted to open a page. Upgrading to IE6 stopped the crash, but it still locked up. Removing RAS fixed the problem but I needed RAS on that machine so I had to manually remove each of the 20-odd hotfixes (one at a time with a forced reboot between each one) to find the one that screwed everything up. I will never trust MS with automatic updating.
See this article on slate for some interesting ideas on why Google's page-ranking system is being undermined due to the evolution of ecommerce and price-comparing portals.
That article has already been dealt with on Slashdot (here). Using a bit of intelligence when searching will avoid the problems cited.
Unless Google gets worse I think it is. I don't think it is possible to produce the degree of improvement (to the quality of results) necessary to take significant market share from them. Google is good enough. I may be wrong but I don't see a revolutionary improvement to searching happening again.
Slashdot Mirror
That's all very well provided you're immortal and young. However to date improvements to life expectancy haven't really resulted in more time for people at the prime of life, but rather more years of old age. What's the point of living to 150 if you're basically decrepit from the age of 70 or 80?
If the letters were assigned by frequency it'd be a lot quicker to use once you get used to the layout. Something like:
That's for the older (and heavier and slower) lead acid batteries.
It's not too hard: the scale treats chance of collision as more significant than consequences of collision. Bascially 2-4 represent very low chance of collision, 5-7 represent significant chance of collision, and 8-10 represent certain collision. Within those ranges the lowest number is the is for events with less significant consequences and the highest number is for more significant consequences.
The damage is very hard to determine without knowing precisely where an object will hit. Since even a small object could cause massive casualties and destruction if it were to hit a city the primary factor has to be the chance of collision. This is how the Torino scale works.
What are you talking about? I don't see how the lack of interoperability is any benefit to the consumer. When you sell something to the public you list features that are beneficial to the public, not "features" which are beneficial to the manufacturer or some other third party.
The website claims 0-60mph in 4.1s and 1/4 mile in 13.2s. Very good. For comparison: A Corvette Z06 does 3.9 and 12.4, and many Porsche 911 Turbos can manage sub-4s 0-60 and sub-12s 1/4 miles. A number of Ferraris manage the 1/4 mile in less than 13s, though few have 0-60 accelerations of less than 4s (For example: 360 Spider: 4.5, 12.7, 575M Maranello: 4.2, 12.3).
I like their poll. I wonder how SCO's PR department would spin the fact that 96% of people think SCO are smoking crack.
Oh, and there is no "law of averages".
Two facts were probably most significant in the jury finding McD's 80% responsible for the accident and awarding such high punitive damages: that their coffee was significantly hotter than other establishments', and that they had 700 complaints over the prior 10 year period so they clearly knew the dangers.
Last Thursday in the wake of the Blaster worm I ran Windows Update on a NT4 machine. One of the hotfixes it applied (823803) screwed up the RAS subsystem which resulted in IE5.5 crashing whenever it attempted to open a page. Upgrading to IE6 stopped the crash, but it still locked up. Removing RAS fixed the problem but I needed RAS on that machine so I had to manually remove each of the 20-odd hotfixes (one at a time with a forced reboot between each one) to find the one that screwed everything up. I will never trust MS with automatic updating.
In the original draft of Return of the Jedi (then Revenge of the Jedi) Endor was to be populated by Wookies, according to IMDB.