I know you're being funny, but just because I hope to correct this misconception in the long run: 24 is not enough for everyone. The actual number required is closer to 240. That is the point at which not even the 99th percentile of eye responsiveness can detect the frames, and perceive instead smooth motion.
His point is that what you are capturing is different photons involved in a wave. As soon as you capture any given photon, it's no longer a participant in the wave, so you can't capture the movement of even one photon, much less multiple photons. What you do capture is some photons characteristic of those moving across a scene.
Look, I'm not saying "you're an idiot", I'm just saying sometimes things aren't as black-and-white as you seem to think. (Also the word "evil" is BADLY misused for things that are, at worse, annoyances.)
This worked just fine for TiVo
Bullshit. Tivo advertised the shit out of their product.
It doesn't count as advertising because it's presented passively, only to people who are actively looking for your solution. On their timetable, completely under their control.
TiVo began the heavy duty advertising after word of mouth stopped making sales for them. Prior to that, I had never seen an ad for them anywhere, but I sure had heard about them. I'm sure they did some advertising, but it was clearly not a big budget item for them prior to their sellout.
You sell it in a market, online or physical. You state what it does, what problem it solves. The first person with that problem who finds your product tell his friends, and word of mouth does the rest.
This worked just fine for TiVo before they sold their souls to the advertisers to make a short-term buck. Now no one wants them because they've given up the features that people really cared about for that short-term advertising dollar, and hence they are on the slow slide into oblivion.
Hmm, it does for me, or at least I think it does. I suppose it is possible it could be noscript. But I definitely don't see ads on google search. I have adblock plus, firefox, easylist.
we wouldn't need AdBlock at all. For example, who complains about ads on the Google search page? The ads are highly relevant, and largely unobtrusive. If advertisers were smarter, they'd go one step beyond Google and give the consumer direct control of their ad placement. I don't mind ads when I'm buying, but when I'm not, I want them out of the way. Sounds like a UI problem to me. How hard would it be to solve?
There are ads on the Google search page? <Turns off adblock to check it out> Hey, you're right!
I don't think that's clear to science yet. Certainly if you're thinking about going down into a sub-universe that we create, it's not possible. But if you go the other direction, the host universe can be bound by different rules.
It's two different ways of looking at the same thing. You could say the same thing about the loom driving down the price of clothing, but what's the point?
Nothing happens to engineers. They just design quantum chips instead, at worst (but most likely: a mix of quantum and conventional computers is still required). Most likely it will still be decades yet before most even need to care.
Nothing happens to programmers. A handful of library designers will work out the interesting bits. The rest will continue building applications on top of the libraries as usual.
If Bill Gates hadn't exploited a monopoly, the pie would have been bigger for everyone. As you said, it's non zero-sum, and he was a net cost to the system.
It's not a zero sum game, because your premise that same job's salary buys the same things is completely untrue. Nobody had a job that could pay for a computer with a gigaflop of performance 60 years ago. Today, virtually all jobs can pay for that. Likewise, many jobs today pay off a home that could not have before (ignoring slight dip recently due to housing bubble/global financial meltdown).
No kidding. I know more and more people who are leaving facebook because... well, it gets boring. It's just clearly not what people want in the long term.
Right, well, the speculation goes that maybe you can. Obviously, our current knowledge of physics is incomplete, maybe some obvious exception is easy to see in another hundred or so years. Maybe the day you can split quarks you notice a rift in reality and figure out how to exploit that. I'm not saying I believe it, personally, just that it can't be ruled out, and it would be one valid explanation for the fermi paradox.
Nah, it'll get cheaper and cheaper. In two hundred years' time there will be consortiums of the wealthy who can decide that their genes are going to be the ones that get to populate a whole new system. And the ones that choose to do so? Well, their memes/genes will likely choose to do so again, when the population at the destination system gets high enough, and from then on, you have a pretty rapid race going to fill all empty space in the galaxy.
Slashdot Mirror
But only a lifetime to watch at 240, which would be better for a smooth viewing experience.
I know you're being funny, but just because I hope to correct this misconception in the long run:
24 is not enough for everyone. The actual number required is closer to 240. That is the point at which not even the 99th percentile of eye responsiveness can detect the frames, and perceive instead smooth motion.
The plural does work that way, though, and the plural form was used, so technically it was correct.
His point is that what you are capturing is different photons involved in a wave. As soon as you capture any given photon, it's no longer a participant in the wave, so you can't capture the movement of even one photon, much less multiple photons. What you do capture is some photons characteristic of those moving across a scene.
But really, he's just being a pedant troll.
Bah, and today is the first time in seemingly months that I have no mod points for such a worthy post.
And that doesn't count as advertising... how?
Look, I'm not saying "you're an idiot", I'm just saying sometimes things aren't as black-and-white as you seem to think. (Also the word "evil" is BADLY misused for things that are, at worse, annoyances.)
Bullshit. Tivo advertised the shit out of their product.
It doesn't count as advertising because it's presented passively, only to people who are actively looking for your solution. On their timetable, completely under their control.
TiVo began the heavy duty advertising after word of mouth stopped making sales for them. Prior to that, I had never seen an ad for them anywhere, but I sure had heard about them. I'm sure they did some advertising, but it was clearly not a big budget item for them prior to their sellout.
You sell it in a market, online or physical. You state what it does, what problem it solves. The first person with that problem who finds your product tell his friends, and word of mouth does the rest.
This worked just fine for TiVo before they sold their souls to the advertisers to make a short-term buck. Now no one wants them because they've given up the features that people really cared about for that short-term advertising dollar, and hence they are on the slow slide into oblivion.
Hmm, it does for me, or at least I think it does. I suppose it is possible it could be noscript. But I definitely don't see ads on google search. I have adblock plus, firefox, easylist.
we wouldn't need AdBlock at all. For example, who complains about ads on the Google search page? The ads are highly relevant, and largely unobtrusive. If advertisers were smarter, they'd go one step beyond Google and give the consumer direct control of their ad placement. I don't mind ads when I'm buying, but when I'm not, I want them out of the way. Sounds like a UI problem to me. How hard would it be to solve?
There are ads on the Google search page?
<Turns off adblock to check it out>
Hey, you're right!
I think he was suggesting that the shit being advertised is what winds up in the landfill when the consumer eventually figures out he was sold shit.
There's a meme war going on over on 4chan over MLP, which is likely the cause.
It's their corporate motto and all! Therefore this story is a lie.
Whiskers can also refer to a specific growth pattern. E.g. out the sides of the top lip, ala cat whiskers. So he's talking about beard plus that.
I don't think that's clear to science yet. Certainly if you're thinking about going down into a sub-universe that we create, it's not possible. But if you go the other direction, the host universe can be bound by different rules.
I'm not convinced it's possible even now. Not even a full nuclear exchange would get us all.
It's two different ways of looking at the same thing. You could say the same thing about the loom driving down the price of clothing, but what's the point?
Nothing happens to engineers. They just design quantum chips instead, at worst (but most likely: a mix of quantum and conventional computers is still required). Most likely it will still be decades yet before most even need to care.
Nothing happens to programmers. A handful of library designers will work out the interesting bits. The rest will continue building applications on top of the libraries as usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer#Potential
If Bill Gates hadn't exploited a monopoly, the pie would have been bigger for everyone. As you said, it's non zero-sum, and he was a net cost to the system.
It's not a zero sum game, because your premise that same job's salary buys the same things is completely untrue.
Nobody had a job that could pay for a computer with a gigaflop of performance 60 years ago. Today, virtually all jobs can pay for that.
Likewise, many jobs today pay off a home that could not have before (ignoring slight dip recently due to housing bubble/global financial meltdown).
Maybe you could explain where you think he's wrong, so we can all laugh at you.
No kidding. I know more and more people who are leaving facebook because ... well, it gets boring.
It's just clearly not what people want in the long term.
Right, well, the speculation goes that maybe you can. Obviously, our current knowledge of physics is incomplete, maybe some obvious exception is easy to see in another hundred or so years. Maybe the day you can split quarks you notice a rift in reality and figure out how to exploit that. I'm not saying I believe it, personally, just that it can't be ruled out, and it would be one valid explanation for the fermi paradox.
Interesting. Sounds like if you want to get a sneak peek at how the story goes, the works of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Saberhagen
might be of interest.
Nah, it'll get cheaper and cheaper. In two hundred years' time there will be consortiums of the wealthy who can decide that their genes are going to be the ones that get to populate a whole new system. And the ones that choose to do so? Well, their memes/genes will likely choose to do so again, when the population at the destination system gets high enough, and from then on, you have a pretty rapid race going to fill all empty space in the galaxy.