It's their side that claims it's not an environment/choice issue, and that you're just born with it, and they claim to have the science to support that. If that's not the case then homosexuality might really be curable.
Not everyone has biological children. People dies of a whole host of issues, for example:
Drug overdose (resistance will gradually arise). Choice (the choice not to have children will weed itself out). Homosexuality (now that they can generally adopt, their genes won't get the alloparenting boost, so homosexuality is going to go into decline).
Movie recording is going all digitial. As the price of digital equipment is coming down, the costs are beginning to fall below the cost of film, so soon projects both big and small will be shot on equipment that is mostly 60fps based.
Indeed, when I said clearly, what I meant was that the positive evidence was incontrovertible. Those who would deny that are covering their ears and yelling la la la in an effort to avoid the truth. I'm disdainful of the other point of view because it's unscientific, and I strongly prefer science to mythology.
It's a losing proposition overall in that dimension because we actually increase the total amount of sick time for the elders where the younger will have to provide care.
Nope, those studies were nature footage shot using a high speed camera onto film. People can tell the difference. Industry hasn't budged because 24 is 'good enough' and the price to retool is enormous.
True, I was thinking of that more as an artifact of the display though, rather than an artifact of the refresh rate, but in some ways they are inextricably tied.
Absolutely, I probably should have clarified that this is all for 'action'. The closer you are to a static image, the less relevant frame rate becomes. No one can tell the difference between 1fps and 600fps on a static image.
I don't have links handy but they aren't terribly hard to find. Most of the population (more than 90%) can tell the difference between 24 and 48. Most (over 50%) can tell the difference on any 10fps jump (i.e. 60fps to 70 fps) up to 80 fps IIRC. Beyond that it starts to dwindle, but there's still a substantial chunk (20ish%) that can tell a 10fps difference at 120fps. By 240fps you reach the point where basically no one can tell the difference between that and anything faster, no matter how much faster (e.g. 240 vs 480 fps benefits basically no one).
Deficit spending is clearly the right strategy some of the time. Particularly if you spend your deficit on infrastructure that grows the economy and results in increased wealth to pay back that debt. The real problem comes when you spend that debt on ephemera like elder health care that gets you nothing but additional expenses.
Well, I think the (part of) the point with fusion power is that the ancillary costs are also low. That there's essentially zero carbon footprint, the only output is harmlessly small amounts of helium, that the input is sufficiently plentiful to last essentially indefinitely. And as a result, the low cost of fusion power would MORE accurately reflect the costs of generation. Whereas with things like coal power, we're subsidizing generation costs with atmospheric costs that are getting paid by people who weren't necessarily benefiting from the generation.
Slashdot Mirror
21 inches = 0.5334 meters, *not* 1/2 meter.
Not a big difference, but significant for mounting equipment...
Pfft. Nothing a sledgehammer won't solve.
How do you avoid being bitten by a drop ferret?
It's their side that claims it's not an environment/choice issue, and that you're just born with it, and they claim to have the science to support that. If that's not the case then homosexuality might really be curable.
In which case they were doing fusion so fast they would have made a nice smooth glassy surface too.
Not everyone has biological children. People dies of a whole host of issues, for example:
Drug overdose (resistance will gradually arise).
Choice (the choice not to have children will weed itself out).
Homosexuality (now that they can generally adopt, their genes won't get the alloparenting boost, so homosexuality is going to go into decline).
They omitted the word clock, but I'd still say their meaning was clear.
That's coming in q4.
Movie recording is going all digitial. As the price of digital equipment is coming down, the costs are beginning to fall below the cost of film, so soon projects both big and small will be shot on equipment that is mostly 60fps based.
And yet they have a 200 billion dollar debt. Magic!
http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-texas-debt-clock.html
A deficit is whatever you spend beyond your present balance, whether you call it a bond or something else.
Indeed, when I said clearly, what I meant was that the positive evidence was incontrovertible. Those who would deny that are covering their ears and yelling la la la in an effort to avoid the truth. I'm disdainful of the other point of view because it's unscientific, and I strongly prefer science to mythology.
Motion blur is the same in high speed film as in lower speed film.
24fps is actually the LOWER threshold. The level below which most people no longer perceive smooth motion.
Indeed.
It's a losing proposition overall in that dimension because we actually increase the total amount of sick time for the elders where the younger will have to provide care.
I like classic movies, so I can unfortunately claim that films from any decade all suffer the same problem.
Nope, those studies were nature footage shot using a high speed camera onto film.
People can tell the difference. Industry hasn't budged because 24 is 'good enough' and the price to retool is enormous.
True, I was thinking of that more as an artifact of the display though, rather than an artifact of the refresh rate, but in some ways they are inextricably tied.
Absolutely, I probably should have clarified that this is all for 'action'. The closer you are to a static image, the less relevant frame rate becomes. No one can tell the difference between 1fps and 600fps on a static image.
I don't have links handy but they aren't terribly hard to find. Most of the population (more than 90%) can tell the difference between 24 and 48. Most (over 50%) can tell the difference on any 10fps jump (i.e. 60fps to 70 fps) up to 80 fps IIRC. Beyond that it starts to dwindle, but there's still a substantial chunk (20ish%) that can tell a 10fps difference at 120fps. By 240fps you reach the point where basically no one can tell the difference between that and anything faster, no matter how much faster (e.g. 240 vs 480 fps benefits basically no one).
I'm one of the luck few with sensitive eyes. Watching movies at 24 fps is jarring. I can't wait til they move up to 60 or 120.
I'm pretty sure they actually intend for the poor to eat used food in the fair tax dystopia.
I think that's 'state may cause itself to be unable to repay bonds'.
It's shorthand for 'state issues bonds it may not be able to repay'.
Deficit spending is clearly the right strategy some of the time. Particularly if you spend your deficit on infrastructure that grows the economy and results in increased wealth to pay back that debt. The real problem comes when you spend that debt on ephemera like elder health care that gets you nothing but additional expenses.
Well, I think the (part of) the point with fusion power is that the ancillary costs are also low. That there's essentially zero carbon footprint, the only output is harmlessly small amounts of helium, that the input is sufficiently plentiful to last essentially indefinitely. And as a result, the low cost of fusion power would MORE accurately reflect the costs of generation. Whereas with things like coal power, we're subsidizing generation costs with atmospheric costs that are getting paid by people who weren't necessarily benefiting from the generation.