They're talking about the physical device, not the content.
I have a "TV", but I use it as a large monitor for my computer. The only difference between a large "computer screen" and "TV" with hdmi and vga ports these days is an integrated tuner and less emphasis on things like color accuracy.
I think their numbers are going to get more and more meaningless as time goes on.
You can put the film on any pair of shades. All it requires is a linearly polarized filter. Unfortunately, you'll find a wide selection of sunglasses with linearly polazized lenses (advertised as reducing reflections) at your local gas station. Although, they might be 90 degrees off.
For me, it has to do with which company has more cameras out in peoples hands...becaues this determines how easily I can find kick ass gear on craigslist for 1/2 price.
Point and shoots can't replicate the usability of an SLR either. The time between pushing the button and when the picture is taken is usually 4-10x longer.
This would still require a lens to create a virtual image some distance out...which would totally screw with your normal vision. Not enough details in the article to know if they found some lens equation breaking way around this (like laser painting).
I think you're confused about hdr. Max brightness will always be "all bits on". It's only paper white because that's the absolute max brightness your display can show!
You need an HDR display to view HDR images, otherwise you're just doing tonal mapping. The examples show in that wiki are not HDR images, they're tonal mapped images. Their dynamic range is exactly the dynamic range of all the other pictures you've seen today, 3 color channels, 256 bits per color channel. High dynamic range displays require brighter backlights to make the higher *dynamic range* possible, otherwise you're just increasing bits-per-pixel and reducing color banding. You'll never find an HDR display in anything powered with our current battery tech because of this.
These were offered to OEMs at discount because it's not a full license.
See "How does a company qualify to become a direct Microsoft OEM? It seems that the larger companies currently have an unfair advantage compared with smaller OEMs." from their Licensing FAQ.
Context is appropriate of course. They're talking about displays here, so the "changes everything" probably, just maybe, is more about "changes everything in display technology"...which it will.
Wait, so is this a protest against the "authority" in general, "the man" or something? What does camping overnight in a public park have to do or even slightly protest the going-ons of wall street???
I believe that things need to change, but, literally being bums is not going to change anything. All it'll do is make you look like you're jobless, without motivation, and without any real means to affect a change. At least that's how I see sitting around all day, waiting for things to get rosy.
Better yet, tweet your new account, dump the old one, before things get hairy. It'll be interesting to see how many followers would actually make the jump...I'm guessing 1% range.
We don't know what his employment that he signed when he started said, so everything here is assumption.
Every company I've worked for (except my first job, round table) had a very clear agreement in the employment contract that anything I made during work hours belonged to the company, and any inventions I made outside outside of work hours had pretty strong limitations (it couldn't be, at all, related to my job). If he signed something even similar to all of the contracts I've signed, the account belongs to them.
If you've ever worked for a tech company, there's paperwork that you sign on your first day that says otherwise. I can only imagine this company had the same type of agreement.
Slashdot Mirror
They're talking about the physical device, not the content.
I have a "TV", but I use it as a large monitor for my computer. The only difference between a large "computer screen" and "TV" with hdmi and vga ports these days is an integrated tuner and less emphasis on things like color accuracy.
I think their numbers are going to get more and more meaningless as time goes on.
I picture wave, solar, wind, ocean current, and gas/turbine generators.
You can put the film on any pair of shades. All it requires is a linearly polarized filter. Unfortunately, you'll find a wide selection of sunglasses with linearly polazized lenses (advertised as reducing reflections) at your local gas station. Although, they might be 90 degrees off.
For me, it has to do with which company has more cameras out in peoples hands...becaues this determines how easily I can find kick ass gear on craigslist for 1/2 price.
Point and shoots can't replicate the usability of an SLR either. The time between pushing the button and when the picture is taken is usually 4-10x longer.
This would still require a lens to create a virtual image some distance out...which would totally screw with your normal vision. Not enough details in the article to know if they found some lens equation breaking way around this (like laser painting).
And, the moment this detection software is for sale, it will be inserted into the paid posters submission workflow.
Yes, that would be tonal mapping into a SDR space.
Could a stray bit of antimatter interacting with matter be the cause of some of the gamma-ray bursts?
Maybe something like a comet?
Oops, 8 bits per color, 256 values per color...
I'd correct it if I could. Thanks. :)
Using a tonal mapped image is not the same as an HDR image or display.
I think you're confused about hdr. Max brightness will always be "all bits on". It's only paper white because that's the absolute max brightness your display can show!
You need an HDR display to view HDR images, otherwise you're just doing tonal mapping. The examples show in that wiki are not HDR images, they're tonal mapped images. Their dynamic range is exactly the dynamic range of all the other pictures you've seen today, 3 color channels, 256 bits per color channel. High dynamic range displays require brighter backlights to make the higher *dynamic range* possible, otherwise you're just increasing bits-per-pixel and reducing color banding. You'll never find an HDR display in anything powered with our current battery tech because of this.
For a realistic idea of an HDR display, here's an interesting review: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/04/brightside_hdr_edr/5
Desert lighting shatters all of my theories involving water.
This kid made an an eye gesture device, not true eye tracking. You can't have a cursor follow your eye.
"users with motor disabilities to enter text into a computer using eye gestures instead of a physical interface."
If you look, you'll see it's only two wires attached near the eye which makes it somewhat obvious. Cool, but a misleading title.
In other news, a news reporter misunderstands technology!
>Then they started that horrible OEM recover CD
These were offered to OEMs at discount because it's not a full license.
See "How does a company qualify to become a direct Microsoft OEM? It seems that the larger companies currently have an unfair advantage compared with smaller OEMs." from their Licensing FAQ.
Context is appropriate of course. They're talking about displays here, so the "changes everything" probably, just maybe, is more about "changes everything in display technology"...which it will.
True, but it still is gain without compensation. Are you as comfortable with going into an art gallery and snapping photos of the art for sell?
>you protest the authority
Wait, so is this a protest against the "authority" in general, "the man" or something? What does camping overnight in a public park have to do or even slightly protest the going-ons of wall street???
I believe that things need to change, but, literally being bums is not going to change anything. All it'll do is make you look like you're jobless, without motivation, and without any real means to affect a change. At least that's how I see sitting around all day, waiting for things to get rosy.
"If they care mostly about his professional identity then they'll stick to the old account."
Or, if they're completely inactive...which a majority probably are.
Followers isn't anywhere remotely close to being related to active followers.
Better yet, tweet your new account, dump the old one, before things get hairy. It'll be interesting to see how many followers would actually make the jump...I'm guessing 1% range.
We don't know what his employment that he signed when he started said, so everything here is assumption.
Every company I've worked for (except my first job, round table) had a very clear agreement in the employment contract that anything I made during work hours belonged to the company, and any inventions I made outside outside of work hours had pretty strong limitations (it couldn't be, at all, related to my job). If he signed something even similar to all of the contracts I've signed, the account belongs to them.
If you've ever worked for a tech company, there's paperwork that you sign on your first day that says otherwise. I can only imagine this company had the same type of agreement.
Not buying it would be the duty. Stealing it happens because you want something that you don't have. They can be totally separated.
This post is a much clearer representation of what I was going to say:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2525024&cid=38051654