That's the whole point of multirotor camera drones
It's not the whole point. There's also the massive cost saving of not sending a human up in a helicopter to get your swoopy fly-over shoots, which will still make for fancy TV from a hundred metres up. Given the amount of noise this thing supposedly generates, it may well be that that's the kind of shot they're looking to emulate rather than getting in a golfer's face (or ball flight path).
Is that seriously enough time for such an evolution to take place? Seems like there might be a million other reasons why this is happening, not because of something so recent.
It happened recently, so yeah, it probably is due to something recent. Don't believe it? You can always get yourself a PhD like the scientists who did the study and repeat the research yourself.
Evolution can easily occur in a single generation if the selection pressure is high enough. In fact, it does occur, all the time, in every generation, but just isn't always this noticeable.
Yes, because we've already got a much more sensible explanation for life on Earth that doesn't require an outside intelligence for which there is no evidence.
What more, exactly, do you (by which I mean the generic "you," not you specifically, since we're all different) want from a pair of speakers?
And same with cameras (personally, I think people who publish photos taken with an iphone should be shot for polluting the flow of electrons with their crappy photos).
What about those fucking douchebags in Russia who had the gall to record that once-in-a-lifetime meteor event with a crappy dashboard cam instead of installing a Red One on the offchance?
Heck, I still go on multiday tours on motorbike (with not much spare room besides my tent and sleeping bag) with SLR and second lense *because it produces better photos*.
How nice for you. What is so vomit-inducingly wrong with other people going on holiday in their camper vans with their iPhones because they can't be arsed with an SLR?
It's a pity a lot of people don't care about quality anymore, but some of us still do.
Newsflash: people do care about quality. But they also care about convenience, cost, and even brand identity.
They're also free to assign different weights to those parameters.
To prove the point, here are before-and-after photos from one San Francisco household (mine)
But, but, I have more gadgets than I used to. Since that's all that's required to prove a point around here, apparently, I've simultaneously proven the exact opposite! How can something be both true and not true?!
You're making the assumption that they thought about this.
More specifically, I'm making the assumption that Nvidia, the multi-billion dollar company, have thought about this deal harder and for longer than the kind of Slashdotter who likes to chip in on these stories a few more minutes after reading about it.
Having all games (and thus their ports) on million and millions of xbox and PS consoles designed and optimized for your specific hardware for the next 10 years is worth money. Any profit they actually get is just icing.
Quick, better call Nvidia and tell them this before they make a terrible, terrible mistake! Just say you're calling from Slashdot - they'll put you straight through to the CEO.
Slashdot Mirror
And the cat:
Huh. Forcefield. Huh. Forcefield. Huh. Forcefield? Huh! Forcefield.
Wow, your personal experience of not using an iPad for very much has really added to this discussion. Thanks!
That's the whole point of multirotor camera drones
It's not the whole point. There's also the massive cost saving of not sending a human up in a helicopter to get your swoopy fly-over shoots, which will still make for fancy TV from a hundred metres up. Given the amount of noise this thing supposedly generates, it may well be that that's the kind of shot they're looking to emulate rather than getting in a golfer's face (or ball flight path).
If they fly them low enough that there's a possibility of that happening, I might actually consider watching golf.
Do you realise it isn't?
To discuss? No. To dismiss offhand? It helps.
or is this your crazy intuition?
It's obviously his dad's crazy intuition.
Good guys, bad guys, didn't matter, everyone respawns.
Is that Buddhism or Hinduism?
That is what bankruptsy law is for.
No, it isn't.
Is that seriously enough time for such an evolution to take place? Seems like there might be a million other reasons why this is happening, not because of something so recent.
It happened recently, so yeah, it probably is due to something recent. Don't believe it? You can always get yourself a PhD like the scientists who did the study and repeat the research yourself.
Evolution can easily occur in a single generation if the selection pressure is high enough. In fact, it does occur, all the time, in every generation, but just isn't always this noticeable.
ensure that everybody can access broadband internet speeds of 20Mbps from just $20 by 2020.
I'm surprised they didn't make it "up to 20Mbps from just $20," in which case, mission accomplished!
They drop nuts into an intersection... and then pick out the meat
They can keep away from my meaty nuts, I says.
1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive
Why is this fact required? Don't the other two suffice by themselves?
If switching off the lights for one hour per year really were beneficial, why would we not do it for the other 8,759?
The stupidity of the question aside, why are you implying that we all have our lights on 365/24/7?
Now there's no need to save the polar bears.
A Beowulf cluster of Arduinos emulated in Minecraft running on a Raspberry Pi.
Which I won't believe unless it's announced at SXSW.
Yes, because we've already got a much more sensible explanation for life on Earth that doesn't require an outside intelligence for which there is no evidence.
Firstly, how do you know that's all they did? Secondly, why wouldn't it constitute a fix, if it (y'know) fixes the problem?
that sound good
What more, exactly, do you (by which I mean the generic "you," not you specifically, since we're all different) want from a pair of speakers?
And same with cameras (personally, I think people who publish photos taken with an iphone should be shot for polluting the flow of electrons with their crappy photos).
What about those fucking douchebags in Russia who had the gall to record that once-in-a-lifetime meteor event with a crappy dashboard cam instead of installing a Red One on the offchance?
Heck, I still go on multiday tours on motorbike (with not much spare room besides my tent and sleeping bag) with SLR and second lense *because it produces better photos*.
How nice for you. What is so vomit-inducingly wrong with other people going on holiday in their camper vans with their iPhones because they can't be arsed with an SLR?
It's a pity a lot of people don't care about quality anymore, but some of us still do.
Newsflash: people do care about quality. But they also care about convenience, cost, and even brand identity.
They're also free to assign different weights to those parameters.
To prove the point, here are before-and-after photos from one San Francisco household (mine)
But, but, I have more gadgets than I used to. Since that's all that's required to prove a point around here, apparently, I've simultaneously proven the exact opposite! How can something be both true and not true?!
A fingerprint scanner with a pulse detector (which many have)
I would hope all the doctors at the hospital in question have a pulse.
You're making the assumption that they thought about this.
More specifically, I'm making the assumption that Nvidia, the multi-billion dollar company, have thought about this deal harder and for longer than the kind of Slashdotter who likes to chip in on these stories a few more minutes after reading about it.
Having all games (and thus their ports) on million and millions of xbox and PS consoles designed and optimized for your specific hardware for the next 10 years is worth money. Any profit they actually get is just icing.
Quick, better call Nvidia and tell them this before they make a terrible, terrible mistake! Just say you're calling from Slashdot - they'll put you straight through to the CEO.
Matthew Keys, a Reuters social media editor, is accused of deliberately encouraging Anonymous to hack his previous employer
Reading FTW!
relativity and the speed of light limit applies to any object with mass, no matter how small.
Don't they apply to massless objects too?