Just seems weird to me. If I needed leads for all those things, I would make the title specific, so you know who you're talking to, e.g. Joe McBlow, Lead Protoss Engineer. Calling him the Lead SCII developer makes him sound higher up the hierarchy than he actually is.
Traditionally, there can only be one lead on a project. Did they decide to hand out lead titles to everyone? How many people lead the development of SC II?
That's half of the problem with America - we want it fast and convenient. If the law firm makes money, fine. Personally, I'd rather a more private consultation with my lawyer. I certainly wouldn't want to discuss a criminal case so out in the open.
Why not? It's privileged. Is a neighbor going to walk by and overhear?
I'd love to see the scientists' evidence that the bees solved a large, difficult TSP problem. If the bee is really optimal on 100 flowers, for example, how did they verify that optimality? I don't think there's a computer around that can verify the bee's solution, nor can we discredit it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star#Mass claims you can't get below 75, but it depends on how much metal you are willing to allow your 'gas giant' to contain.
1) The 'retina' display is a big lie, based on holding the display further away from the eye than is realistic. Most people can make out the pixels on the retina if they hold it at a comfortable distance.
2) A 1080p display doesn't have to scale video output, which means less artifacts.
We're not even close, thanks to the eye's variable focus. Think 20x off in x & y, for a combined 400X, and that's still probably not quite there for a few people with really good eyes. But for a more realistic 'when will no one practically be able to tell the difference', we are probably only 4x off in each dimension.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly my point, thank you. Why didn't the author just save me the trouble and get it right in the first place?
You're making my point for me. I have no idea of this guys contribution to SCII, and neither do you, or anyone else reading the article.
So just tell me which of your list this guy is, and stop calling him 'lead for Starcraft II'.
Multidiscipline doesn't cover it:
"a Lead Software Engineer for Wings of Liberty"
Just seems weird to me. If I needed leads for all those things, I would make the title specific, so you know who you're talking to, e.g. Joe McBlow, Lead Protoss Engineer. Calling him the Lead SCII developer makes him sound higher up the hierarchy than he actually is.
Like in most software engineering firms I've worked for, and those people I've known have worked for.
We don't call the sub people leads. We call them things like 'senior'.
Traditionally, there can only be one lead on a project. Did they decide to hand out lead titles to everyone? How many people lead the development of SC II?
Redundant? Who else posted that before I did?
Responding to police misconduct of that gravity with a riot is pretty much what you do. Either revolt against or enjoy your oppression.
Only in America...
That's half of the problem with America - we want it fast and convenient. If the law firm makes money, fine. Personally, I'd rather a more private consultation with my lawyer. I certainly wouldn't want to discuss a criminal case so out in the open.
Why not? It's privileged. Is a neighbor going to walk by and overhear?
Which is nice. Don't let anyone resell their materials from a prior year. The textbook companies will be thrilled!
I'd love to see the scientists' evidence that the bees solved a large, difficult TSP problem. If the bee is really optimal on 100 flowers, for example, how did they verify that optimality? I don't think there's a computer around that can verify the bee's solution, nor can we discredit it.
The critically missing corner case is that TSP is not typically a fully connected graph, whereas the open air typically is.
That's because you're not as smart as the bumblebee, which can solve TSP while having inter-species sex.
It is when you think about compacting it down into the smallest volume such that nuclear fusion starts up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star#Mass
Claims 75X mass of jupiter (depending on the extent to which you are willing to allow your planet to have a metal core rather than be mostly gas).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star#Mass claims you can't get below 75, but it depends on how much metal you are willing to allow your 'gas giant' to contain.
Yes, it helps to eliminate scaling artifacts for 1080p content.
And basically everyone can tell the difference between 2400dpi printers and 600dpi printers as well.
Two answers:
1) The 'retina' display is a big lie, based on holding the display further away from the eye than is realistic. Most people can make out the pixels on the retina if they hold it at a comfortable distance.
2) A 1080p display doesn't have to scale video output, which means less artifacts.
That's only 11X the resolution and framerate we've been able to feed for more than a decade. Seems like we should be able to manage it.
Right, and that's why we need the same resolution on our 4" screens as on our 24" screens? One of them has the DPI wrong. (It's the 24" screens).
We're not even close, thanks to the eye's variable focus. Think 20x off in x & y, for a combined 400X, and that's still probably not quite there for a few people with really good eyes. But for a more realistic 'when will no one practically be able to tell the difference', we are probably only 4x off in each dimension.
And to avoid scaling artifacts.