More likely, Snapchat will probably launch some sort of display ad system, similar to what Facebook and Twitter have now—but given how it doesn't store user information on its servers
They may make a point of not storing the images on their servers, but what's to stop them storing information on users? For that matter, what's to stop them displaying non-targetted ads?
it faces a rather unique problem: how do you make money off a free app that near-instantly vaporizes all content?
It sounds to me more like it faces a rather imaginary problem made up by the writer of the article.
It doesn't matter how many bits you use in floating point. It is always an approximation.
Often, but not always. Integers, or negative integer powers of 2 and their sums, won't be approximate (though of course you can't be sure they weren't rounded from some unrepresentable number).
I'm still miffed that they (the general "they") went with parallel instead of cross-eyed as the side-by-side standard. You can manage the latter without glasses for a quick preview at a reasonable size, but not the former.
Granted, you can fit a lot more on your desktop but it raises the question, isn't 1080p enough?
10 internet points to you for not using "begs the question."
As for an answer, no, IMO, it's not enough (it's also not quite the right question to ask, because what really matters is pixels per degree). "Enough" will be when anti-aliasing/cleartype no longer have any visible effect.
Goddammit. I opened the link in a new tab, having only briefly skimmed your post, and when I finally got around to the tab, stared at the image, read the words, saw nothing wrong, and wondered why you'd posted it.
Then I finally came back, read the title, looked again at the image, and all clicked into place.
And then I read the post text properly. Curse you!
I thought of that too - I don't know if something that's still done, but a lighting map for an environment can be obtained by taking a shot of a smooth mirrored ball - instant almost 360 degree map of the room's lighting (they did/do it on Doctor Who, dontchaknow). This ball could be a higher resolution, but equally instant, method.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, "begs the question" is reserved for much more obvious questions.
Possibly subjecting myself to a "whoosh" (but hoping to avert it by owning up to it first), but that's not what it means at all.
More likely, Snapchat will probably launch some sort of display ad system, similar to what Facebook and Twitter have now—but given how it doesn't store user information on its servers
They may make a point of not storing the images on their servers, but what's to stop them storing information on users? For that matter, what's to stop them displaying non-targetted ads?
it faces a rather unique problem: how do you make money off a free app that near-instantly vaporizes all content?
It sounds to me more like it faces a rather imaginary problem made up by the writer of the article.
Because in some cases there is no other reason that makes it worth doing.
The relationship between text size, number of pixels, and readability isn't linear (yeah, I know, that's three things, you know what I mean).
A tethered suit (like the early diving suits) would fix any problem with a life-support system.
Really? Any problem?
Of course! It's so simple! Man, they'll be kicking themselves at NASA when they read this.
They should have built a simpler, more reliable cooling unit too.
Oh, also, a cheaper, safer rocket to get them up there in the first place.
Anything else you want to ask Santa for?
They should have built simpler, more reliable suits.
They are looking into better suits now
Tense mismatch.
Why not have a tethered backup for suits?
Same reason laptops don't have a permanently tethered backup for the battery.
Using pounds is the most sensible way to report it.
It may be the best way for the average American understand it, but that doesn't make it sensible.
Pounds are a unit of weight
There is also a unit of mass called the pound.
It doesn't matter how many bits you use in floating point. It is always an approximation.
Often, but not always. Integers, or negative integer powers of 2 and their sums, won't be approximate (though of course you can't be sure they weren't rounded from some unrepresentable number).
(0.25+0.50)==0.75
true
Well, let's see, in 2007 there were over 200,000 companies in the U.S. with over $10,000,000 in receipts... (http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html)
Did any of them declare losses of -$2147483648 to the IRS?
Each stereo pair is shown twice, alternating between left and right.
Aren't the left/right frames projected at the same time?
I'm still miffed that they (the general "they") went with parallel instead of cross-eyed as the side-by-side standard. You can manage the latter without glasses for a quick preview at a reasonable size, but not the former.
Wow, you're so awesome, the way you picked up on that guy's small, forgivable error. You must be quite a hit with the ladies.
Have you tried OpenGL rendering instead of DirectX?
Granted, you can fit a lot more on your desktop but it raises the question, isn't 1080p enough?
10 internet points to you for not using "begs the question."
As for an answer, no, IMO, it's not enough (it's also not quite the right question to ask, because what really matters is pixels per degree). "Enough" will be when anti-aliasing/cleartype no longer have any visible effect.
Based on what? A hunch?
That's not what "racist" and "sexist" mean, though, is it?
Which you can read all about in my article, "Is Betteridge's Law of Headlines true?"
Pink used to be for boys.
all men are potential rapists/pedophiles.
Potential? I'll show 'em!
Wait, that came out wrong.
Goddammit. I opened the link in a new tab, having only briefly skimmed your post, and when I finally got around to the tab, stared at the image, read the words, saw nothing wrong, and wondered why you'd posted it.
Then I finally came back, read the title, looked again at the image, and all clicked into place.
And then I read the post text properly. Curse you!
I thought of that too - I don't know if something that's still done, but a lighting map for an environment can be obtained by taking a shot of a smooth mirrored ball - instant almost 360 degree map of the room's lighting (they did/do it on Doctor Who, dontchaknow). This ball could be a higher resolution, but equally instant, method.
You can get the single images from the camera and stitch with a third party tool if you like!
Such as Hugin.