Instead of rendering a relatively small 1920×1080 frame, as you’d find on a Blu-ray for instance, a 360 degree frame would have to be many times that resolution in order to preserve quality after stretching all the way around the viewer.
Maybe the movie could be pre-rendered into a 3D model, with information about polygons, textures, and lighting, and then perform the 3D->2D conversion in the viewer's headset for the section that the viewer is looking at.
I often take the train to work. The total trip takes more time than with the car, but I get exercise walking to/from the station, so I consider that free. On the train I can read or work, or catch up on news/e-mail, so that's pretty much free too. The train station is perfectly weather resistant, and the schedule is just as punctual as the freeway traffic, if not more.
With enough self-driving cars, slow rush hour traffic can be avoided altogether, and replaced by a time slot based system where you wait for your time slot, and then take the trip itself at full cruising speed.
Well, thank you for the free economics 101 lesson, but you didn't address the first half of the comment "If cars are driving themselves, then they're going to be sharing the road with a lot of vehicles that are not", which was what I was replying to.
1. Make rush hour trips more expensive. If the price is high enough, someone will want to own the fleet.
2. For a price you can get 99,99%. Your own car can't guarantee 100% either.
3. Put your phone in the console, and use NFC to exchange all information.
4. Why not ?
He didn't say they wouldn't be self driving, he said the people in them would want to own them.
Actually, he commented both on the owning as well as the driving part. And, as a matter of fact, most business vehicles are owned by the company the driver works for, and not the driver itself.
You know where a lot of processed foods came into vogue? -- all the "low-fat" food crazy beginning in the 1980s
There are still plenty of high fat processed foods that are very popular. Candy bars, pizza, cookies, and ice cream to name a few.
Uh, once again -- look at most snack foods. Derived from grains
Plain old grains are too boring. People are unlikely to overeat on them. In snack foods, the grains are usually combined with extra sugar, (usually) some fat, salt, and aromas. These things combined make the snack food very hard to resist. In itself, grains aren't bad, as long as you eat them in moderation.
Exactly. The body basically refuses to grow muscle unless there's a calorie surplus. As a competitive weightlifter it is necessary to overeat on a regular basis to stimulate muscle growth.
Muscles work just fine burning fat. You only need glucose for your muscles to get peak performance, because metabolising fat requires about 10% more oxygen per unit energy than glucose. If you don't need peak performance (which is 99% of the time, unless you're engaged in competitive sports), fat is perfect fuel.
There are other parts of your body that need glucose as fuel, but the minimum daily requirement is low enough that your body can synthesise it from fats and proteins.
So, the only psychopaths this policy really benefits are the subset who own or are bribed by Big Pharma, and to a lesser degree the armies of cardiologists and dieticians who service this system
You forget the processed food industry, which has no concerns for your health, and is specifically engineering food to make it as addictive as possible. Unfortunately, a very addictive combination is a 50/50 mixture of sugar and fat. Despite all the dietary science we do, the industry will continue to design food to maximize profits.
...Except that the Eskimos have been eating zero-carb for 5000+ years
The study may be correct in its conclusions, but it's still poorly designed to have the test subjects combine weight loss with dietary changes. It would have been better if the weight was kept stable throughout the study, and just vary the diet. And, even better if the test was done on both slim, healthy people, and overweight people with metabolic syndrome.
No, it really doesn't matter how much you consume on a low carb, high fat diet as long as you remain in nutritional ketosis.
Except that the "ridiculously high levels of processed food" as the parent mentions are not low carb. Processed food contains a well-engineered mix of fat, sugar, salt and flavor purposely designed to make you want to eat more of it. Combined with ubiquitous advertising (50% of the TV commercials in the USA is about food), and easy access (for instance the insane portion sizes), this is the main cause of the obesity epidemic.
The reason that low-carb/high fat works is because people don't feel like eating too much of that. There's only so much steak you can eat, but there's always room for dessert.
Participants, on average, lost almost 22 pounds by the end of the trial.
So, apparently, more calories went out than in. Which also makes this a poor study. We know that weight loss improves health and risk markers in the blood. Therefore, a study that was designed to measure the effects of macro nutrient distribution now is distorted by the weight loss. What they should have done is pay more attention to keep the total calorie intake the same as the output, so that the overall weight of the test group stays stable.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is the government even involved in this ?
Simple. Buy one that doesn't have a screen. http://www.johnsphones.com/sto...
so they can use the correct gravity and inertia models for their false flag productions, like 9/11... (September Clues)
The 9/11 gravity and inertia models were so well done, it even fooled the people on the streets who saw it live.
Instead of rendering a relatively small 1920×1080 frame, as you’d find on a Blu-ray for instance, a 360 degree frame would have to be many times that resolution in order to preserve quality after stretching all the way around the viewer.
Maybe the movie could be pre-rendered into a 3D model, with information about polygons, textures, and lighting, and then perform the 3D->2D conversion in the viewer's headset for the section that the viewer is looking at.
I often take the train to work. The total trip takes more time than with the car, but I get exercise walking to/from the station, so I consider that free. On the train I can read or work, or catch up on news/e-mail, so that's pretty much free too. The train station is perfectly weather resistant, and the schedule is just as punctual as the freeway traffic, if not more.
With enough self-driving cars, slow rush hour traffic can be avoided altogether, and replaced by a time slot based system where you wait for your time slot, and then take the trip itself at full cruising speed.
Well, thank you for the free economics 101 lesson, but you didn't address the first half of the comment "If cars are driving themselves, then they're going to be sharing the road with a lot of vehicles that are not", which was what I was replying to.
1. Make rush hour trips more expensive. If the price is high enough, someone will want to own the fleet. 2. For a price you can get 99,99%. Your own car can't guarantee 100% either. 3. Put your phone in the console, and use NFC to exchange all information. 4. Why not ?
He didn't say they wouldn't be self driving, he said the people in them would want to own them.
Actually, he commented both on the owning as well as the driving part. And, as a matter of fact, most business vehicles are owned by the company the driver works for, and not the driver itself.
Probably the point-to-point part, as public transport can be affordable, on-demand and weather-resistant.
Yes, but we don't have to own or drive the automobile, which was the point.
The trucks and vans can be self driving too.
I figure you could still drive on dedicated tracks, much like people can still ride horses.
The links are just an anecdote of one person, set out to prove his own opinion. Not convincing.
You know where a lot of processed foods came into vogue? -- all the "low-fat" food crazy beginning in the 1980s
There are still plenty of high fat processed foods that are very popular. Candy bars, pizza, cookies, and ice cream to name a few.
Uh, once again -- look at most snack foods. Derived from grains
Plain old grains are too boring. People are unlikely to overeat on them. In snack foods, the grains are usually combined with extra sugar, (usually) some fat, salt, and aromas. These things combined make the snack food very hard to resist. In itself, grains aren't bad, as long as you eat them in moderation.
You can even get vit C from meat, as long as you don't cook it.
Exactly. The body basically refuses to grow muscle unless there's a calorie surplus. As a competitive weightlifter it is necessary to overeat on a regular basis to stimulate muscle growth.
It is physically impossible to sustain a permanent caloric deficit without dying.
Muscles work just fine burning fat. You only need glucose for your muscles to get peak performance, because metabolising fat requires about 10% more oxygen per unit energy than glucose. If you don't need peak performance (which is 99% of the time, unless you're engaged in competitive sports), fat is perfect fuel. There are other parts of your body that need glucose as fuel, but the minimum daily requirement is low enough that your body can synthesise it from fats and proteins.
The caloric rating of food is based on setting it on fire and measuring the heat produced
If that's true, that's not an argument against calories in=out, it just means the measurement has an error.
So, the only psychopaths this policy really benefits are the subset who own or are bribed by Big Pharma, and to a lesser degree the armies of cardiologists and dieticians who service this system
You forget the processed food industry, which has no concerns for your health, and is specifically engineering food to make it as addictive as possible. Unfortunately, a very addictive combination is a 50/50 mixture of sugar and fat. Despite all the dietary science we do, the industry will continue to design food to maximize profits.
Saturated or unsaturated fad ?
...Except that the Eskimos have been eating zero-carb for 5000+ years
The study may be correct in its conclusions, but it's still poorly designed to have the test subjects combine weight loss with dietary changes. It would have been better if the weight was kept stable throughout the study, and just vary the diet. And, even better if the test was done on both slim, healthy people, and overweight people with metabolic syndrome.
No, it really doesn't matter how much you consume on a low carb, high fat diet as long as you remain in nutritional ketosis.
Except that the "ridiculously high levels of processed food" as the parent mentions are not low carb. Processed food contains a well-engineered mix of fat, sugar, salt and flavor purposely designed to make you want to eat more of it. Combined with ubiquitous advertising (50% of the TV commercials in the USA is about food), and easy access (for instance the insane portion sizes), this is the main cause of the obesity epidemic. The reason that low-carb/high fat works is because people don't feel like eating too much of that. There's only so much steak you can eat, but there's always room for dessert.
Participants, on average, lost almost 22 pounds by the end of the trial.
So, apparently, more calories went out than in. Which also makes this a poor study. We know that weight loss improves health and risk markers in the blood. Therefore, a study that was designed to measure the effects of macro nutrient distribution now is distorted by the weight loss. What they should have done is pay more attention to keep the total calorie intake the same as the output, so that the overall weight of the test group stays stable.