And it looks as if you don't understand how science works, either
I may not know enough about Kant to fully understand why Kantians were challenged by Relativity theory, but I do know that the philosophy of science is an unsettled field. Perhaps the best way to understand science is to do science, and not simply argue whether "a priori" and "a posteriori" are adequate containers for human knowledge.
On the other hand, you are correct, and I was in the wrong-- to the extent that the "invariance of light" relies on experimental data, it is a posteriori.
is based on two postulates: (1) that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference); and (2) that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.
som nice juicy a priori truths for you.
The absolute speed limit (for particles with positive rest mass) is a consequence of special relativity.
Estuaries tend to have interesting ecosystems associated with them--Everglades, mangroves, etc that are also important in hurricane protection, among other things. What's the likely environmental impact of building these sorts of power plants?
The whole point of scrapping a ship is that the steel can be reused for other purposes. The Kepler space telescope can't be scrapped-- it's in the wrong sort of orbit to be returned to earth. From that perspective, it's actually worse than scrap.
Use google or wikipedia for better detailed literary analysis than I can do.
Screw that. You can actually hire someone to provide you with a customized literary analysis of the book. I believe they charge 75 dollars a page, more if there's a deadline. Some offer a guarantee of quality, but such things are always subjective.
it sounds like a gimmick though, the whole deal. how else to get a private fucking reading room for your book?
First, become a famous author. Second, create a manuscript on paper Third, donate that manuscript to a library, where they'll store it in a rare book room with all the other books that can't be replaced if lost or damaged.
11 degrees of arc, divided by 720: 0.91 Mar about 20/20 vision 11 degree of arc divided by 1280: 0.51 Mar about 20/10 vision 11 degrees of arc divided by 1920:0.34 Mar about 20/6 vision
TV stores don't ask for your viewing distance and preferred viewing angle and then provide you with a screen with resolution to match.
They do, however, sell 1080p sets and 720p sets. And now 4k sets Considering that your eyes really aren't good enough to tell a 480p picture from a 1080p picture, you might have saved some cash by going with a lower specced set. Or not. "1080p" makes for enough of a bullet point that 720p sets aren't quite as profitable to manufacture.
hdtv began as a way to replicate the movie theater experience at home.
Pick the best seat in the house, and the screen occupies 36 degrees of your visual field. It dominates your field of view, and it's immersive. Trouble is if you sit that close to a standard definition screen, your eyes see pixels--blurred details that should be there, but aren't.
So, more resolution, and a wider screen was needed. Sure, you can sit ever closer to a small hdtv, but it's somewhat uncomfortable ergonomically
Using the standard that the human eye can resolve one arcminute of resolution, 480p is good for about 12.7 degrees, 720p, about 21 degrees, and 1080p is good for about 32 degrees. 4k is good for about 64 degrees, which is just massive.
The problem is, a 40 inch screen, viewed at a distance of 15 feet is solidly in the realm of Standard Definition --it doesn't matter if it's 1080p or not; you'd need very good eyes to resolve any more detail than what's on a DVD. (Since I have a 39 inch TV, I can confirm that viewed from a distance of 15 feet, it's rather tiny. My couch is limited by a tiny living room, so it's rather closer than yours.)
As for "correctness", content viewed on a small, distant screen has a different impact than content viewed on a close, large screen. People with smaller screens tend to prefer sharp, grain free pictures. People with larger screens can tell that the sharpening algorithms have resulted in halo artifacts, and the grain scrubbing has reduced human skin to the consistency of wax.
But if you're not impressed by the idea that a TV can an should occupy more of your visual space; if you're disturbed by the idea that what's on TV should dominate your attention; if seeing films in a theatre of your very own seems inappropriate; then yeah-- 4k television is the ultimate boondoggle.
Even if it's ostensibly higher resolution than 720p--it could well be over-compressed.
I poked my head in the neighborhood HHGregg, the other day. All of the TVs, except the 4K ones were tuned to the same football game, and on those, you couldn't even tell that it was played on grass. They may use DirectTV.
Of course the 4K TVs looked stunning in comparison.
I for one, cannot wait to see the new edits George Lucas has planned for the UHD version of "A New Hope". But that probably won't be for another few years.
My problem is that I use multiple windows, on multiple desktops, each with multiple tabs. And when I'm watching one thing, another page decides "This might be a good time to tell Jeremy about "Charmin Ultrasoft"
3 color PDF? Most operations are intelligent enough to use CMYK-- Black ink is cheap, and if you have any registration problems, your readers don't get headaches.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an unusual choice.I would have used Mercury, or hot molten lead.
And it looks as if you don't understand how science works, either
I may not know enough about Kant to fully understand why Kantians were challenged by Relativity theory, but I do know that the philosophy of science is an unsettled field. Perhaps the best way to understand science is to do science, and not simply argue whether "a priori" and "a posteriori" are adequate containers for human knowledge.
On the other hand, you are correct, and I was in the wrong-- to the extent that the "invariance of light" relies on experimental data, it is a posteriori.
wikipedia notes that
Special Relativity
is based on two postulates: (1) that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference); and (2) that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.
som nice juicy a priori truths for you.
The absolute speed limit (for particles with positive rest mass) is a consequence of special relativity.
Estuaries tend to have interesting ecosystems associated with them--Everglades, mangroves, etc that are also important in hurricane protection, among other things. What's the likely environmental impact of building these sorts of power plants?
You should write up that idea and send it into Analog
The whole point of scrapping a ship is that the steel can be reused for other purposes. The Kepler space telescope can't be scrapped-- it's in the wrong sort of orbit to be returned to earth. From that perspective, it's actually worse than scrap.
Really? The Ice Age is ending? Wow. I for one, will be glad to see an ice free Antarctica.
My attorney bills $250/hour to read and analyse a EULA. Expensive, but worth it.
They seem a bit too passionate to be taken that seriously.
It's not just the same as the physical object
Use google or wikipedia for better detailed literary analysis than I can do.
Screw that. You can actually hire someone to provide you with a customized literary analysis of the book. I believe they charge 75 dollars a page, more if there's a deadline. Some offer a guarantee of quality, but such things are always subjective.
it sounds like a gimmick though, the whole deal. how else to get a private fucking reading room for your book?
First, become a famous author.
Second, create a manuscript on paper
Third, donate that manuscript to a library, where they'll store it in a rare book room with all the other books that can't be replaced if lost or damaged.
11 degrees of arc, divided by 720: 0.91 Mar about 20/20 vision
11 degree of arc divided by 1280: 0.51 Mar about 20/10 vision
11 degrees of arc divided by 1920:0.34 Mar about 20/6 vision
So, those must be some very good eyes.
TV stores don't ask for your viewing distance and preferred viewing angle and then provide you with a screen with resolution to match.
They do, however, sell 1080p sets and 720p sets. And now 4k sets Considering that your eyes really aren't good enough to tell a 480p picture from a 1080p picture, you might have saved some cash by going with a lower specced set. Or not. "1080p" makes for enough of a bullet point that 720p sets aren't quite as profitable to manufacture.
hdtv began as a way to replicate the movie theater experience at home.
Pick the best seat in the house, and the screen occupies 36 degrees of your visual field. It dominates your field of view, and it's immersive. Trouble is if you sit that close to a standard definition screen, your eyes see pixels--blurred details that should be there, but aren't.
So, more resolution, and a wider screen was needed. Sure, you can sit ever closer to a small hdtv, but it's somewhat uncomfortable ergonomically
Using the standard that the human eye can resolve one arcminute of resolution, 480p is good for about 12.7 degrees, 720p, about 21 degrees, and 1080p is good for about 32 degrees. 4k is good for about 64 degrees, which is just massive.
The problem is, a 40 inch screen, viewed at a distance of 15 feet is solidly in the realm of Standard Definition --it doesn't matter if it's 1080p or not; you'd need very good eyes to resolve any more detail than what's on a DVD. (Since I have a 39 inch TV, I can confirm that viewed from a distance of 15 feet, it's rather tiny. My couch is limited by a tiny living room, so it's rather closer than yours.)
As for "correctness", content viewed on a small, distant screen has a different impact than content viewed on a close, large screen. People with smaller screens tend to prefer sharp, grain free pictures. People with larger screens can tell that the sharpening algorithms have resulted in halo artifacts, and the grain scrubbing has reduced human skin to the consistency of wax.
But if you're not impressed by the idea that a TV can an should occupy more of your visual space; if you're disturbed by the idea that what's on TV should dominate your attention; if seeing films in a theatre of your very own seems inappropriate; then yeah-- 4k television is the ultimate boondoggle.
how's the color accuracy?
I know, right? I edit CAD files from my couch.
PBS gets a bit annoying, they only broadcast in wide screen
But so does everyone else.
Even if it's ostensibly higher resolution than 720p--it could well be over-compressed.
I poked my head in the neighborhood HHGregg, the other day. All of the TVs, except the 4K ones were tuned to the same football game, and on those, you couldn't even tell that it was played on grass. They may use DirectTV.
Of course the 4K TVs looked stunning in comparison.
Fifteen feet away? Get a bigger screen, or move your couch.
I for one, cannot wait to see the new edits George Lucas has planned for the UHD version of "A New Hope". But that probably won't be for another few years.
It's a desktop, but thanks for the tip.
Really? The times has video And upon occasion, it's dabbled with less traditional story telling techniques
My problem is that I use multiple windows, on multiple desktops, each with multiple tabs. And when I'm watching one thing, another page decides "This might be a good time to tell Jeremy about "Charmin Ultrasoft"
3 color PDF? Most operations are intelligent enough to use CMYK-- Black ink is cheap, and if you have any registration problems, your readers don't get headaches.