Consider that at 24 fps, the shutter remains open for 1/24 sec. Try taking sharp pictures with a camera having a 1/24 sec shutter time - anything that moves will not be sharp. Now, you might think that decreasing the shutter time to say 1/100 sec or 1/250 sec, and play back at 24 fps solves the issue. It doesn't. Especially in sports, for instance a tennis match, you would see this: o o o o o o. The tennis ball will be sharp, but seems to appear multiple times when moving at high speed. Not acceptable.
Cameron is damn right - only higher frame rates allow for faster shutter speeds and sharper images.
And damn those tv manufacturers with their snake-oil "interpolation frames" that do not help at all to get a sharper picture.
What I meant to say is that a theory that has to be constantly backfitted to match observations instead of predicting those observations loses credibility.
I'd love to see how the Big Bang theory fits observations that the universe is open (i.e., expanding at an accelerating pace). Oh yeah, of course, dark matter has been invented to backfit these observations... brilliant. Good luck with that!
"Also the Big Bang makes predictions of the distributions - relative amounts, or abundance - of the light elements and their isotopes."
I think you have it backwards. The Big Bang theory was "refined" to match the observed distributions of the light elements.
If the observed distribution was in line with some previously established predictions that the BB theory brought forward, then it would have added significantly to the theory's credibility. Backfitting a theory to observed data hurts its credibility.
The observational "evidence" has required the BB theory to be refined frequently. In itself there's nothing wrong with refining a theory, but a theory having to be refined a lot starts to lose its credibility.
About the word "perhaps": the whole BB theory itself is a big "perhaps", especially as there are other explanations possible for the same observations. It's just that currently, the consensus is that the BB theory fits these observations the best.
Perhaps the universe started completely empty and gradually filled up our universe with energy, particles, creating space and time gradually. Perhaps the existance of space induces the creation of energy in our universe.
That may also explain the accelerating expansion of the universe. Since there is increasingly more space, energy gets created at an accelerated pace in our universe.
Energy can't appear out of nothing. That's why I say our universe. Conservation of energy demands "negative" energy to have been created simultaneously in such a way our universe can't interact with it (or we would have never existed).
is releasing new functionality as quickly as possible. Timelines counts, not code quality.
One of the classic arguments between manager and coder is about how much time should be invested in cleaner code, since, as most coders would argue, such investment earns itself back because new features can be implemented faster when having a nice and tidy code base.
Managers of course often get their ways and coders reluctantly give in, mumbling about code becoming unmaintainable.
Investing in code quality is indeed risky:
- Even despite poor code quality, the coders know their stuff and implement new functionality without any problems;
- After investing in code cleanups it may soon turn out that this particular functionality is no longer required and all this nice and tidy code has been developed for nothing;
- "Cleanups" may end up in overly complicated code which turns out to be even more difficult to maintain than the original code base.
Companies save money by using open source sofware, mostly developed by volunteers as well. Is developing OSS also stupid? After all, a decent programmer can make much more than minimum wage.
So while it is impossible to invent a flying car because cars would run into eachother in the air, it is at the same time possible to implement a computer system that avoids just that on the ground?
In other news from the future: Blomberg invents revolutionary button that you can press when you want the music to stop immediately, and continues at the same point when you press the button again! Very useful when you have to pick up the phone.
How about making Wikipedia more democratic by introducing a voting system. Let's say that for certain pages, each change gets a short (1 day at most) voting period and needs at least 50% of the votes to be accepted.
This will at least make vandalism much harder, while at the same time there is no barrier for proposing changes, as it should.
It is illegal to produce software that is targeted to spread copyrighted content. How come it is not illegal for companies to make software that damages my computer?
It is illegal to produce software that is targeted to spread illegal content. How come it is not illegal for companies to make software that damages my computer?
You seem to focus mainly on the area of IT where it plays a facilitating role. You specifically mention video conferencing, "cisco network of 20 computers", the speed in which a computer program executes.
However, let's also look at the enabling role of IT, the software side. Companies like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Ebay etc. prosper because of their IT knowledge and assets. But also for non-IT companies, IT is a strategic part of their operations. In the finance industry (insurances, banks) the quality of their back-office software more than ever has become a factor in driving down operational costs. Logistic companies (think UPS) depend heavily on IT.
It increasingly is the quality of IT that gives companies an edge over their competitors. With a smoothly running back-office, you can run your business more efficiently and with less people.
However, these smart systems need to be build by smart people that have a deep knowledge of IT. Good software architects that can build well-functioning solutions, by using the input of experts on the business side. (So, I don't agree with you when you say "IT workers are not supposed to be separated from the business that they work for[,] they are part of it". An architect designing an office only needs some input from the people that will use the office to be able to build it. The architect does not need to have an intimate knowledge of their business. I strongly believe that this analogy holds true for software as well.)
In the mean time, IT has acquired a questionable image. Job losses, outsourcing to India, salaries going down are trends that keep new students from choosing for studying computer science. There will be a shortage of good IT people again because of this.
Your post radiates negativism and dismissal towards the importance of IT. I encourage you to look around and see how IT is of strategic importance to many companies. Please don't make it sound as if IT is "just another aspect" of business, because for many companies, it is much more than that.
The text messaging guy had a personal record of sending a 160 character message in 57 seconds. That means 2.8 characters per second.
In the show, the message was "I just saved a bunch of money on my card" which is a 40 character message. I timed how long it took the morse-coder to send it: about 20 seconds. That converts to 2 characters per second.
So I guess, on a good day, the sms'er is still able to beat the morse-coder.
The term "nanotechnology" is becoming a bit inflated. Companies know that merely mentioning the word nanotechnology in a press-release ensures a lot of extra attention. It is kind of sad that good ol' Slashdot seems to fall for this cheap trick as well.
Not too long ago, nanotechnology was about wonderful fantasies of small machines at nano-level assembling molecules or even medicines. Too bad that simple physics prevent this from becoming a reality (the resistance of air at nano-level is too large, for example). Now, nanotechnology is about punching very small holes in metal.
Maybe it is about time that everyone realizes that nanotechnology is not as exiting as it used to be.
A planet which harbours intelligent life may produce night time light. A large enough telescope may be able to see it.
There are already plans for a telescope that can take a spectrum of extrasolar planets: TPF.
Yes, I know, the article is old and probably no-one reads this comment anymore. Never mind.
You talk about interplanetary spreading and the fact that robots can't colonize planets. You are implying that a single, very expensive manned Mars mission would be the first step into colonization and interplanetary spreading, and that they augment the survival chances of the human race.
This really is hogwash. With what we know now, we can not terraform Mars, nor can we routinely transport many people from earth to Mars. Note that in my original post, I talked about the "current state of the art". In the future, yes, who knows. But not now. Putting someone on Mars is not going to change that. It is not going to increase the survival chances of the human race one little bit.
FYI: Mars is almost as hostile an environment for humans as is the Moon. High radiation, almost no atmosphere, no air pressure. There might be water, but that's also true for the moon.
Your arguments about not needing houses and so on are demagogical. No, we do not need anything besides food, some heat and air. But surely, life becomes a lot more pleasant with houses, cars, tv's and internet. Now, how would life become more pleasant when a man walks on Mars? For the cost, other research which has much higher impact scientifically, and thus also in terms of space exploration, than one Mars mission. How about research in ion-engines, or other methods to thrust space vehicles that can reach speeds that may make travels to other solar systems once possible? How about detecting earth-like planets with a successor of the Hubble? We need to make choices.
I would have agreed with you if you would have admitted that men on Mars gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside on yet another great achievement of the Human race, and, if you are from the USA, on yet another great USA achievement. Maybe this feeling is worth to you a lot. Maybe for many people. But please do not try to defend it with hogwash arguments about interplanetary spreading and survival of the human race.
Slashdot Mirror
Blog entry about the lack of innovation at Microsoft and some perspective.
Beware: it's *cough* my blog, so this is a *cough* shameless plug *sneeze*.
Damn right.
Consider that at 24 fps, the shutter remains open for 1/24 sec. Try taking sharp pictures with a camera having a 1/24 sec shutter time - anything that moves will not be sharp. Now, you might think that decreasing the shutter time to say 1/100 sec or 1/250 sec, and play back at 24 fps solves the issue. It doesn't. Especially in sports, for instance a tennis match, you would see this: o o o o o o. The tennis ball will be sharp, but seems to appear multiple times when moving at high speed. Not acceptable.
Cameron is damn right - only higher frame rates allow for faster shutter speeds and sharper images.
And damn those tv manufacturers with their snake-oil "interpolation frames" that do not help at all to get a sharper picture.
Although it is not possible to reconstruct a fingerprint from the hash, it may be possible to verify a fingerprint against the fingerprint database.
Even the suggestion that this is possible, is already unwanted.
Smart-ass teacher: "Don't try anything nasty, because we will search for fingerprints and look who did it!"
These are the kind of worries kids can do without.
It's just not a good idea.
Ok, "refined" should perhaps have read "adapted".
What I meant to say is that a theory that has to be constantly backfitted to match observations instead of predicting those observations loses credibility.
I'd love to see how the Big Bang theory fits observations that the universe is open (i.e., expanding at an accelerating pace). Oh yeah, of course, dark matter has been invented to backfit these observations... brilliant. Good luck with that!
"Also the Big Bang makes predictions of the distributions - relative amounts, or abundance - of the light elements and their isotopes."
I think you have it backwards. The Big Bang theory was "refined" to match the observed distributions of the light elements.
If the observed distribution was in line with some previously established predictions that the BB theory brought forward, then it would have added significantly to the theory's credibility. Backfitting a theory to observed data hurts its credibility.
The observational "evidence" has required the BB theory to be refined frequently. In itself there's nothing wrong with refining a theory, but a theory having to be refined a lot starts to lose its credibility.
About the word "perhaps": the whole BB theory itself is a big "perhaps", especially as there are other explanations possible for the same observations. It's just that currently, the consensus is that the BB theory fits these observations the best.
Bullshit. Attacking a theory does not mean attacking the observations it's based on.
Allright then...
Perhaps the universe started completely empty and gradually filled up our universe with energy, particles, creating space and time gradually. Perhaps the existance of space induces the creation of energy in our universe.
That may also explain the accelerating expansion of the universe. Since there is increasingly more space, energy gets created at an accelerated pace in our universe.
Energy can't appear out of nothing. That's why I say our universe. Conservation of energy demands "negative" energy to have been created simultaneously in such a way our universe can't interact with it (or we would have never existed).
...and assuming the big bang theory is correct (which I have the audacity to doubt upon).
Perhaps a stupid question, but is 500 million years enough time for all of these spiral galaxies to form?
is releasing new functionality as quickly as possible. Timelines counts, not code quality.
One of the classic arguments between manager and coder is about how much time should be invested in cleaner code, since, as most coders would argue, such investment earns itself back because new features can be implemented faster when having a nice and tidy code base.
Managers of course often get their ways and coders reluctantly give in, mumbling about code becoming unmaintainable.
Investing in code quality is indeed risky:
- Even despite poor code quality, the coders know their stuff and implement new functionality without any problems;
- After investing in code cleanups it may soon turn out that this particular functionality is no longer required and all this nice and tidy code has been developed for nothing;
- "Cleanups" may end up in overly complicated code which turns out to be even more difficult to maintain than the original code base.
Companies save money by using open source sofware, mostly developed by volunteers as well. Is developing OSS also stupid? After all, a decent programmer can make much more than minimum wage.
So while it is impossible to invent a flying car because cars would run into eachother in the air, it is at the same time possible to implement a computer system that avoids just that on the ground?
In other news from the future: Blomberg invents revolutionary button that you can press when you want the music to stop immediately, and continues at the same point when you press the button again! Very useful when you have to pick up the phone.
How about making Wikipedia more democratic by introducing a voting system. Let's say that for certain pages, each change gets a short (1 day at most) voting period and needs at least 50% of the votes to be accepted.
This will at least make vandalism much harder, while at the same time there is no barrier for proposing changes, as it should.
can print Tolstoy's "War and Peace" in less than a minute
This doesn't make sense. Please use standard metrics like how many times it can print the libraries of congress per unit of time.
It is illegal to produce software that is targeted to spread copyrighted content. How come it is not illegal for companies to make software that damages my computer?
It is illegal to produce software that is targeted to spread illegal content. How come it is not illegal for companies to make software that damages my computer?
You seem to focus mainly on the area of IT where it plays a facilitating role. You specifically mention video conferencing, "cisco network of 20 computers", the speed in which a computer program executes.
However, let's also look at the enabling role of IT, the software side. Companies like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Ebay etc. prosper because of their IT knowledge and assets. But also for non-IT companies, IT is a strategic part of their operations. In the finance industry (insurances, banks) the quality of their back-office software more than ever has become a factor in driving down operational costs. Logistic companies (think UPS) depend heavily on IT.
It increasingly is the quality of IT that gives companies an edge over their competitors. With a smoothly running back-office, you can run your business more efficiently and with less people.
However, these smart systems need to be build by smart people that have a deep knowledge of IT. Good software architects that can build well-functioning solutions, by using the input of experts on the business side. (So, I don't agree with you when you say "IT workers are not supposed to be separated from the business that they work for[,] they are part of it". An architect designing an office only needs some input from the people that will use the office to be able to build it. The architect does not need to have an intimate knowledge of their business. I strongly believe that this analogy holds true for software as well.)
In the mean time, IT has acquired a questionable image. Job losses, outsourcing to India, salaries going down are trends that keep new students from choosing for studying computer science. There will be a shortage of good IT people again because of this.
Your post radiates negativism and dismissal towards the importance of IT. I encourage you to look around and see how IT is of strategic importance to many companies. Please don't make it sound as if IT is "just another aspect" of business, because for many companies, it is much more than that.
'Don't you know the people in Knoxville wondered what in the world was going on out here'
The USA way of saying "Wir haben es nicht gewusst"?
The text messaging guy had a personal record of sending a 160 character message in 57 seconds. That means 2.8 characters per second.
In the show, the message was "I just saved a bunch of money on my card" which is a 40 character message. I timed how long it took the morse-coder to send it: about 20 seconds. That converts to 2 characters per second.
So I guess, on a good day, the sms'er is still able to beat the morse-coder.
Xn means: move piece X with n squares.
a1, 12, 21, 31, 62, 32, 21, 62, a1, 42, 51, 71, 82, 72, 51, 82, a1, 62, 21, 32, a1, 82, 51, 72, a1
Try it here
The term "nanotechnology" is becoming a bit inflated. Companies know that merely mentioning the word nanotechnology in a press-release ensures a lot of extra attention. It is kind of sad that good ol' Slashdot seems to fall for this cheap trick as well.
Not too long ago, nanotechnology was about wonderful fantasies of small machines at nano-level assembling molecules or even medicines. Too bad that simple physics prevent this from becoming a reality (the resistance of air at nano-level is too large, for example). Now, nanotechnology is about punching very small holes in metal.
Maybe it is about time that everyone realizes that nanotechnology is not as exiting as it used to be.
A planet which harbours intelligent life may produce night time light. A large enough telescope may be able to see it.
There are already plans for a telescope that can take a spectrum of extrasolar planets: TPF.
Yes, I know, the article is old and probably no-one reads this comment anymore. Never mind.
You talk about interplanetary spreading and the fact that robots can't colonize planets. You are implying that a single, very expensive manned Mars mission would be the first step into colonization and interplanetary spreading, and that they augment the survival chances of the human race.
This really is hogwash. With what we know now, we can not terraform Mars, nor can we routinely transport many people from earth to Mars. Note that in my original post, I talked about the "current state of the art". In the future, yes, who knows. But not now. Putting someone on Mars is not going to change that. It is not going to increase the survival chances of the human race one little bit.
FYI: Mars is almost as hostile an environment for humans as is the Moon. High radiation, almost no atmosphere, no air pressure. There might be water, but that's also true for the moon.
Your arguments about not needing houses and so on are demagogical. No, we do not need anything besides food, some heat and air. But surely, life becomes a lot more pleasant with houses, cars, tv's and internet. Now, how would life become more pleasant when a man walks on Mars? For the cost, other research which has much higher impact scientifically, and thus also in terms of space exploration, than one Mars mission. How about research in ion-engines, or other methods to thrust space vehicles that can reach speeds that may make travels to other solar systems once possible? How about detecting earth-like planets with a successor of the Hubble? We need to make choices.
I would have agreed with you if you would have admitted that men on Mars gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside on yet another great achievement of the Human race, and, if you are from the USA, on yet another great USA achievement. Maybe this feeling is worth to you a lot. Maybe for many people. But please do not try to defend it with hogwash arguments about interplanetary spreading and survival of the human race.