My point is that It's easier to do the math myself, for my own application. All that "retina" tells me is that the resolution is above MxN threshold, assuming some distance. What if the distance in my particular application is different than that assumed for the "retina" terminology? Just tell me how many damn pixels the thing has so I can figure out if it will work for my application!
So this means that any display touted as "retina" would depend on the distance from the eye to the display, right? Meaning, the diagonal measurement + "retina" requires another piece of data to know how many pixels are on the damn thing.
I could claim that my old VGA display is "retina" if I don't need to specify the viewing distance, right?
I'm not speaking as a nurse, but from what I understand, it's tough to have that attitude towards your "career" when you don't get paid what you deserve, and your job is more about dealing with the fact that your employer wants to be as cheap as possible in every regard, rather than providing care to patients. Honestly, I think a major outbreak in the US would be a good thing because it might make people think more about the value that they assign to the people actually doing most of the work caring for them when they go to the doctor's office.
All else being equal, if you put solar panels on a building that you are also cooling, the building will be cooler as a result of some of the sun's energy being converted to electricity. Basic conservation of energy.
If you are now talking about tuning the radio, I would argue that it's far more distracting. You are actually taking your attention off of driving, and using it to turn the knob, decide if you like the next station, continue tuning, etc... It's an active task. It's not a passive task. Just because we have trouble defining "active" and "passive" in real-world use cases doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.
I'm too lazy to Google yet another reference to a study, but what you said is just not true. Something like listening to the radio is very passive and requires minimal attention. Talking on a cell phone requires you to form thoughts and sentences, which means you aren't paying attention to the task of driving during these periods. They are just not the same.
On a related note, it's been shownagain and again that you can't really do more than one higher-level brain task at once. So even the people that are very very good at switching rapidly between operating a cell phone and driving are still not really doing both at the same time.
So they aren't actually performing the task of driving while they are preoccupied with their cell phone. They may as well be asleep during those periods.
You're creating a straw man argument out of something that had nothing to do with my original point - which was that you don't need a "good ear" to do what you said was Dr. Dre's area of expertise. I guarantee that as a producer, Dr. Dre's job responsibilities do not include "[evaluating] the results of different parametric curves on tone signature." That's it.
I'll assume you're being sarcastic. Yes, a lot of common quality issues with YouTube videos could probably be solved by some fully-automated post-processing. In cases where the problem is obvious enough that you can detect it by listening to it, I'd argue that an untrained 5-year old could also detect the issue (i.e., you don't need a "good ear.")
The point is you do not need a "good ear" to detect any of those things, because they are easily quantifiable. In fact it's not even desirable, because "good ears" are just as susceptible to biases and placebo effects as the rest of us.
Any mention of "good ear" with respect to physically measurable quantities, means that you're either woefully ignorant or trolling.
A "good ear" with respect to what's popular, or what might market well, that's one thing. But what you actually said is just elitist audiophile bullshit.
I'm a Linux (and UNIX and Windows) user, but I honestly know very little about how drivers in Linux differ from drivers in, say, Windows, or any other OS for that matter. Could you explain what the issues are? I Googled for "Linux driver model" but didn't find anything particularly enlightening.
I tried Planetside 2 (maybe a year ago), and there were definitely fun moments. Most of the time, though, there weren't enough people online to be fun. It's the type of game where if there isn't a big battle going on somewhere it's not really that fun. And I'm not talking trying to play in the middle of the night, either, there were Fridays/Saturdays during primetime when there just wasn't anybody online.
"So this other guy: he's a cancer treatment like you, right?"
"Not like me. Indium-Gallium, advanced prototype."
"You mean more advanced than you are?"
"Yes. A mimetic poly-alloy."
"What the hell does that mean?"
"Liquid metal."
Once Denver sees you run Facebook or Candy Crush a few times, it's got the code optimized and waiting.
I am so fortunate to live in such an advanced age of graphics processors, that let me run the equivalent of a web browser application and a 2D tetris game. What progress! We truly live in an age of enlightenment!
Slashdot Mirror
My point is that It's easier to do the math myself, for my own application. All that "retina" tells me is that the resolution is above MxN threshold, assuming some distance. What if the distance in my particular application is different than that assumed for the "retina" terminology? Just tell me how many damn pixels the thing has so I can figure out if it will work for my application!
So this means that any display touted as "retina" would depend on the distance from the eye to the display, right? Meaning, the diagonal measurement + "retina" requires another piece of data to know how many pixels are on the damn thing.
I could claim that my old VGA display is "retina" if I don't need to specify the viewing distance, right?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=xps+compu...
10 cats doesn't count
I'm not speaking as a nurse, but from what I understand, it's tough to have that attitude towards your "career" when you don't get paid what you deserve, and your job is more about dealing with the fact that your employer wants to be as cheap as possible in every regard, rather than providing care to patients. Honestly, I think a major outbreak in the US would be a good thing because it might make people think more about the value that they assign to the people actually doing most of the work caring for them when they go to the doctor's office.
All else being equal, if you put solar panels on a building that you are also cooling, the building will be cooler as a result of some of the sun's energy being converted to electricity. Basic conservation of energy.
The "E" in "PETA" stands for "Ethical," not "Efficient."
You originally said "listening to the radio."
If you are now talking about tuning the radio, I would argue that it's far more distracting. You are actually taking your attention off of driving, and using it to turn the knob, decide if you like the next station, continue tuning, etc... It's an active task. It's not a passive task. Just because we have trouble defining "active" and "passive" in real-world use cases doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.
I'm too lazy to Google yet another reference to a study, but what you said is just not true. Something like listening to the radio is very passive and requires minimal attention. Talking on a cell phone requires you to form thoughts and sentences, which means you aren't paying attention to the task of driving during these periods. They are just not the same.
On a related note, it's been shown again and again that you can't really do more than one higher-level brain task at once. So even the people that are very very good at switching rapidly between operating a cell phone and driving are still not really doing both at the same time.
So they aren't actually performing the task of driving while they are preoccupied with their cell phone. They may as well be asleep during those periods.
You're creating a straw man argument out of something that had nothing to do with my original point - which was that you don't need a "good ear" to do what you said was Dr. Dre's area of expertise. I guarantee that as a producer, Dr. Dre's job responsibilities do not include "[evaluating] the results of different parametric curves on tone signature." That's it.
I'll assume you're being sarcastic. Yes, a lot of common quality issues with YouTube videos could probably be solved by some fully-automated post-processing. In cases where the problem is obvious enough that you can detect it by listening to it, I'd argue that an untrained 5-year old could also detect the issue (i.e., you don't need a "good ear.")
The point is you do not need a "good ear" to detect any of those things, because they are easily quantifiable. In fact it's not even desirable, because "good ears" are just as susceptible to biases and placebo effects as the rest of us.
Any mention of "good ear" with respect to physically measurable quantities, means that you're either woefully ignorant or trolling.
A "good ear" with respect to what's popular, or what might market well, that's one thing. But what you actually said is just elitist audiophile bullshit.
Feckin' jobbies!
Did you forget to post anonymously? This is some weak trolling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
No, not arbitrary. Very definite.
YOUR sentence is plain wrong: "The sentence parses (...) the average baby..."
What the heck are you implying here?!
The other is for people who actually do important stuff with their computers (power users, researchers, etc.)
I read Wikipedia all day. So I'm a researcher. So that means I do important stuff, huh.
This doesn't sound like a design decision, though. At least not directly. Still wondering what the parent is talking about.
I'm a Linux (and UNIX and Windows) user, but I honestly know very little about how drivers in Linux differ from drivers in, say, Windows, or any other OS for that matter. Could you explain what the issues are? I Googled for "Linux driver model" but didn't find anything particularly enlightening.
I tried Planetside 2 (maybe a year ago), and there were definitely fun moments. Most of the time, though, there weren't enough people online to be fun. It's the type of game where if there isn't a big battle going on somewhere it's not really that fun. And I'm not talking trying to play in the middle of the night, either, there were Fridays/Saturdays during primetime when there just wasn't anybody online.
"So this other guy: he's a cancer treatment like you, right?"
"Not like me. Indium-Gallium, advanced prototype."
"You mean more advanced than you are?"
"Yes. A mimetic poly-alloy."
"What the hell does that mean?"
"Liquid metal."
Once Denver sees you run Facebook or Candy Crush a few times, it's got the code optimized and waiting.
I am so fortunate to live in such an advanced age of graphics processors, that let me run the equivalent of a web browser application and a 2D tetris game. What progress! We truly live in an age of enlightenment!
Need +1's