No, the stress is not an issue. It's the operating temperature of the device that's the issue. It was calibrated at its operating temperature and so can't give NIST traceable results without running at its operating temperature. If what you're claiming is true, you literally wouldn't be able to make measurements for the first two hours. You can make measurements just fine, they just wont be as accurate. If you disagree, try it.
Because someone is paying attention to the supply and demand curves. There's an extremely huge audience compared to even 15 years ago. Not charging more doesn't remotely mean that profits are hurting.
Libraries man. Make a single cloth simulator, use it for all cloth. Make a single skin texture builder, use it for all skin. Make a single face constructor, use it for all faces. Trees, rocks, pavement, buildings...everything. If you've ever played with a proper 3d rendering platform where you don't have to draw everything by hand, it becomes impressive what you can make with a small algo and a random number generator to feed to it.
And yes, I realize 1500 planets a second is a stupid low number considering a realistic beam width. Point is, anything you do will have to be over days aimed at a single planet...assuming you're trying to talk to us right now.
>Planets are very poor reflectors. Not comparable.
Not comparable!??? From wikipedia: "The average overall albedo of Earth, its planetary albedo, is 30 to 35%, because of the covering by clouds, but varies widely locally across the surface, depending on the geological and environmental features."
Just because one square inch of mirror reflects better than one square inch of planet surface does not mean the mirror will be more visible. Your positionable mirrors will still need to cover a surface area that's a pretty large fraction of a planet.
BUT unfortunately that's not how Kepler detects planets. Assuming the detectors can detect an increase in brightness as well as a decrease...you're going to need an array that's close to 100% reflective and exactly the size of a planet.
>What you do is point at a target, let fly, then point at the next target, let fly, etc
From wikipedia: "While only about a dozen planets have been confirmed in the habitable zone, the Kepler spacecraft has identified a further 54 candidates and current estimates indicate that there are "at least 500 million" such planets in the Milky Way."
Either the transmitter or receiver will need to have a wide lobe...otherwise the probability of intercept is stupid low. If you could position your absolutely massive mirrors array at a rate of 1500 planets/second, you would, on your receiving planet, see a signal once every three days for 1/1500 of a second. Kepler can see something like 15 degrees, and requires DAYS of averaging to get something statistically useful. Seeing a 1/1500 second signal even with, literally, planet sized light blockers or reflectors isn't anywhere close to our grasp yet.
Not saying that some aliens aren't doing this....but I don't think we're ready to see it yet.
And, if you're talking about planet sized mirror arrays being feasible, why not planet sized light blockers arrays that can be modulated? Way easier to construct. Is there a benefit in making the average brightness of a sun look brighter rather than darker?
Beings that we're just now able to see *entire planets* orbiting distance suns, I doubt a relatively small array of mirrors, encircling a sun (you would want omnidirectional) would be even close to visible. If they were intentionally going for ease and being highly omnidirectional, I think RF would be the way to go.
You've obviously never played angry birds or plants vs zombies.
I think the pretty and usefulness will be in the proper aliased text presentation. The desktop monitor I'm looking at has only a few useful font sizes for the capital letter "I", ether one pixel wide, two pixels wide, or three pixels wide...anything between is blurry. I would absolutely love to see a true type font that didn't look blurry and didn't require some barely tolerable sub-pixel tricks.
I think he's basically asking for jslint, where you can catch errors many levels deep in your code at compile time, rather than waiting for the code to crash when it, eventually, gets run (in unit test or whatever).
I don't understand this. How does the code look that much different? Besides some syntax differences, they're all almost *exactly* the same. Some languages force you to format your declarations and types differently, but a for loop is a for loop, an object is an object with procedures, variables, scope, and all of whatever features the language supports, doesn't support, or pretends to support. Unless it's something like Haskell or a language that encourages unreadable lambda functions, they all look basically the same to me. Sure, javascript has interesting ways of declaring functions and building objects, but you could still translate it, basically on the fly and at a glance, to any other common language.
When I write code, in whatever language, it not that drastically different. It's all as clean and straightforward as possible for the task. If you look at it, you'll say "yeah, that's ", but only from syntax and slight formatting.
Maybe programming since I was 10 just means I don't see the code anymore.
Not sure why this was modded down. Sadly, it is fairly true. The visual basic for applications is basically vb6 with full access to the windows api and any COM objects.
You probably should have appended a "but shouldn't" to the end.
>The question is whether you will be able to take an existing Win32 app, and recompile it for Win8/ARM.
I think we're having a semantic issue. What I consider a windows desktop is what we currently see as a windows desktop, with all of the ability to run windows executable, legacy or new (which is how the windows desktop has always been).
If you consider the "desktop" as being able to run anything, then looking at how they've handles windows phone unlocking, it appears they don't have any problems with people running non-signed/app store apps on ARM platforms (assuming you're willing to download some "I want out of the sandbox" "jailbreak" from the app store).
My point is that they'll never put a current looking or functioning windows desktop on the arm.
Well, that and the fact that an desktop on the arm would require x86 emulation for 99% of the existing applications.
They will *never* make it appear as a standard desktop because of this. People will pick it up and say "absolutely none of my software works on this". They'll come out with something that, technically, is a desktop, but has no resemblance to the standard desktop (meaning no indication to the user that 99% of the programs aren't compatible"). Oh wait, that's what metro is...a sandboxed cross platform desktop.
Nobody will be forcing anyone to use metro or buy any of the walled garden metro apps. It's just a program that lets you run the sandboxed metro apps. Close it or boot into the standard desktop. Most metro apps will support windows mobile devices and the desktop.
To the vast majority of users that download and try all the free apps they can click on and who don't know or care about any of this, being able to fix a "my phone is infected and doesn't work!" type scenarios is absolutely a feature.
Also, I doubt any os provider will want to be in the spotlight for causing mass network outages after some trojan decides to activate on 100,000 phones, with no way to stop it.
All good data centers also have excellent remote access capabilities so only technicians and on site admins actually have to be there, besides the infrequent tour for executive level management.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the stress is not an issue. It's the operating temperature of the device that's the issue. It was calibrated at its operating temperature and so can't give NIST traceable results without running at its operating temperature. If what you're claiming is true, you literally wouldn't be able to make measurements for the first two hours. You can make measurements just fine, they just wont be as accurate. If you disagree, try it.
Because someone is paying attention to the supply and demand curves. There's an extremely huge audience compared to even 15 years ago. Not charging more doesn't remotely mean that profits are hurting.
Libraries man. Make a single cloth simulator, use it for all cloth. Make a single skin texture builder, use it for all skin. Make a single face constructor, use it for all faces. Trees, rocks, pavement, buildings...everything. If you've ever played with a proper 3d rendering platform where you don't have to draw everything by hand, it becomes impressive what you can make with a small algo and a random number generator to feed to it.
And yes, I realize 1500 planets a second is a stupid low number considering a realistic beam width. Point is, anything you do will have to be over days aimed at a single planet...assuming you're trying to talk to us right now.
>Planets are very poor reflectors. Not comparable.
Not comparable!??? From wikipedia:
"The average overall albedo of Earth, its planetary albedo, is 30 to 35%, because of the covering by clouds, but varies widely locally across the surface, depending on the geological and environmental features."
Just because one square inch of mirror reflects better than one square inch of planet surface does not mean the mirror will be more visible. Your positionable mirrors will still need to cover a surface area that's a pretty large fraction of a planet.
BUT unfortunately that's not how Kepler detects planets. Assuming the detectors can detect an increase in brightness as well as a decrease...you're going to need an array that's close to 100% reflective and exactly the size of a planet.
>What you do is point at a target, let fly, then point at the next target, let fly, etc
From wikipedia:
"While only about a dozen planets have been confirmed in the habitable zone, the Kepler spacecraft has identified a further 54 candidates and current estimates indicate that there are "at least 500 million" such planets in the Milky Way."
Either the transmitter or receiver will need to have a wide lobe...otherwise the probability of intercept is stupid low. If you could position your absolutely massive mirrors array at a rate of 1500 planets/second, you would, on your receiving planet, see a signal once every three days for 1/1500 of a second. Kepler can see something like 15 degrees, and requires DAYS of averaging to get something statistically useful. Seeing a 1/1500 second signal even with, literally, planet sized light blockers or reflectors isn't anywhere close to our grasp yet.
Not saying that some aliens aren't doing this....but I don't think we're ready to see it yet.
And, if you're talking about planet sized mirror arrays being feasible, why not planet sized light blockers arrays that can be modulated? Way easier to construct. Is there a benefit in making the average brightness of a sun look brighter rather than darker?
Beings that we're just now able to see *entire planets* orbiting distance suns, I doubt a relatively small array of mirrors, encircling a sun (you would want omnidirectional) would be even close to visible. If they were intentionally going for ease and being highly omnidirectional, I think RF would be the way to go.
>song downloaded in the Mastered for iTunes format with a CD version of the same song, and said there were no differences.
Why. Sounds like its been achieved.
You've obviously never played angry birds or plants vs zombies.
I think the pretty and usefulness will be in the proper aliased text presentation. The desktop monitor I'm looking at has only a few useful font sizes for the capital letter "I", ether one pixel wide, two pixels wide, or three pixels wide...anything between is blurry. I would absolutely love to see a true type font that didn't look blurry and didn't require some barely tolerable sub-pixel tricks.
I think he's basically asking for jslint, where you can catch errors many levels deep in your code at compile time, rather than waiting for the code to crash when it, eventually, gets run (in unit test or whatever).
I don't understand this. How does the code look that much different? Besides some syntax differences, they're all almost *exactly* the same. Some languages force you to format your declarations and types differently, but a for loop is a for loop, an object is an object with procedures, variables, scope, and all of whatever features the language supports, doesn't support, or pretends to support. Unless it's something like Haskell or a language that encourages unreadable lambda functions, they all look basically the same to me. Sure, javascript has interesting ways of declaring functions and building objects, but you could still translate it, basically on the fly and at a glance, to any other common language.
When I write code, in whatever language, it not that drastically different. It's all as clean and straightforward as possible for the task. If you look at it, you'll say "yeah, that's ", but only from syntax and slight formatting.
Maybe programming since I was 10 just means I don't see the code anymore.
Stupidly assuming you're talking American "football", 119.99993120364 yards, or 0.00247666896 inches from the line.
Your helicopter uses modulated IR. The transmitter probably runs at 40kHz (like a tv remote) with an appropriate filter on the receiver side.
Not sure why this was modded down. Sadly, it is fairly true. The visual basic for applications is basically vb6 with full access to the windows api and any COM objects.
You probably should have appended a "but shouldn't" to the end.
But, that's why this is interesting.
Where you might not have been able to squeeze in an FFT algorithm, now you might be able to.
But...for the price of an official Arduino, you could probably afford multiple DSP chips.
Has anyone tried to physically offset the camera so that it's farther from the sensor, to increase parallax?
>The question is whether you will be able to take an existing Win32 app, and recompile it for Win8/ARM.
I think we're having a semantic issue. What I consider a windows desktop is what we currently see as a windows desktop, with all of the ability to run windows executable, legacy or new (which is how the windows desktop has always been).
If you consider the "desktop" as being able to run anything, then looking at how they've handles windows phone unlocking, it appears they don't have any problems with people running non-signed/app store apps on ARM platforms (assuming you're willing to download some "I want out of the sandbox" "jailbreak" from the app store).
My point is that they'll never put a current looking or functioning windows desktop on the arm.
Well, that and the fact that an desktop on the arm would require x86 emulation for 99% of the existing applications.
They will *never* make it appear as a standard desktop because of this. People will pick it up and say "absolutely none of my software works on this". They'll come out with something that, technically, is a desktop, but has no resemblance to the standard desktop (meaning no indication to the user that 99% of the programs aren't compatible"). Oh wait, that's what metro is...a sandboxed cross platform desktop.
I think something about that last bit is where any interest in the data might come from.
Nobody will be forcing anyone to use metro or buy any of the walled garden metro apps. It's just a program that lets you run the sandboxed metro apps. Close it or boot into the standard desktop. Most metro apps will support windows mobile devices and the desktop.
To the vast majority of users that download and try all the free apps they can click on and who don't know or care about any of this, being able to fix a "my phone is infected and doesn't work!" type scenarios is absolutely a feature.
Also, I doubt any os provider will want to be in the spotlight for causing mass network outages after some trojan decides to activate on 100,000 phones, with no way to stop it.
It would be great if anyone could reproduce the Hutchison effects. :-|
Maybe intermittently using a fleet of taxis are cheaper than industrial sized air conditioners running 24/7. ;-)
All good data centers also have excellent remote access capabilities so only technicians and on site admins actually have to be there, besides the infrequent tour for executive level management.
Unfortunately, this is not the implementation of the universe.
Here are some answers to the question, Does quantum entanglement allow faster-than-light information transfer?, given by scientists.
Yeah, who needs the laws of physics anyways!?
You still need a, at most, speed of light communication channel to correlate the two.
Mine is a 47 inch 1080p color tv, so, TV computer screens seem to grow about an inch per year. :)