Is there a comprehensive list of: - Currently active TLDs (be it cc, g, s or otherwise) - Deprecated TLDs - Proposed TLDs ?
I've got one myself ( http://www.pointzero.nl/dump/domains.xml - don't complain about non-validation, it's only for quick data-reading ), which I already see I need to edit some ( thanks, wikipedia ) - but can't quite seem to find any other comprehensive list in existance to bring it up to current affairs.
Oh, and any blatant errors in the xml's data ? Feel free to point them out:)
I'm curious as to the answer to the question (What is a supercomputer ?).
The reason is this.. more and more of these 'supercomputer' entries appear to be many machines hooked up together, possibly doing a distributed calculation.
However, would projects such as SETI, GRID, and UD qualify with their many thousands of computers all hooked up and performing a distributed calculation ?
If not, then what about the WETA/Pixar/ILM/Digital Domain/Blur/You-name-it renderfarms ? Any one machine on those renderfarms could be put to use for only a single purpose: to render a movie sequence. Any one machine could be working on a single frame of that sequence. Does that count ?
I seem to think more and more that the answer is 'no', from my perspective. They mostly appear to me as rather simple computers (very often not even the top-of-the-line in their own class), with the only thing going for them that there are many of them.
The definition of supercomputer (thanks Google, and by linkage dictionary.reference.com ) is:
A mainframe computer that is among the largest, fastest, or most powerful of those available at a given time.
And for mainframe:
A large powerful computer, often serving many connected terminals and usually used by large complex organizations.
The central processing unit of a computer exclusive of peripheral and remote devices.
Doesn't the above imply that a supercomputer should really be just a single computer, and not a network or cluster of many computers ? ( The mention of 'terminals' does not mean they're nodes. Terminals are, after all, chiefly CPU-less devices intended for data entry and display only. They are not part of the mainframe's computing capabilities. )
If the above holds true, then what is *really* the world's top 3 of supercomputers ? I.e. which aren't 'simply' a cluster of nodes.
Any mistakes in the above write-up/though process ? Please do point them out:)
It's really not that difficult - if you're into this sort of thing.
But fear not... I've already seen flat panel display manufacturers label their screens in megapixels - to match digital cameras, I'm sure. That should satisfy your quest.. maybe. Assuming that all screens remain at a 4:3 aspect ratio anyway. Wouldn't want them to become 2:3 to match traditional photos, or 16:9 for widescreen or 16:10 to match widescreen laptop displays, or 2:1 because the movie industry keeps stretching the da*n image horizontally to 'outperform' TV screens. *urgh* And that's not even taking screen size (hello!), or dot pitch (if CRT) / matrix spacing (if LCD/etc) into account. I'm not quite sure how only listing the resolution will make things easier. That said, I don't know of any site which lists *only* the acronym. Most actually seem to only list the pixels WxH.
For the curious, here's a list of acronyms and their common resolutions and such - can't say I'm familiar with UHDWMRXGA though;): 320x200 CGA - Color Graphics Array 320x240 QVGA - Quarter VGA 400x300 QSVGA - Quarter SVGA 640x350 EGA - Enhanced Graphics Adapter* 0640x480 VGA - Video Graphics Array 720x350 MDA - Monochrome Display Adapter* 800x600 SVGA - Super VGA 1024x768 XGA - eXtended Graphics Array 1200x800 XGAW - (Wide Laptops)* 1152x768 Apple Powerbook G4* 1152x870 Apple Macintosh* 1152x900 Sun Microsystems* 1280x1024 SXGA - Super XGA* 1400x1050 SXGA+ (Laptops) 1600x1024 SXGA-W - Wide* 1680x1050 SXGA-W (Wide Laptops)* 1600x1200 UXGA - Ultra XGA 1920x1200 UXGA-W (Wide)* 2048x1536 QXGA - Quad XGA 2560x2048 QSXGA - Quad SXGA* 3200x2048 QSXGA-W (Wide)* 3200x2400 QUXGA - Quad UXGA 3840x2400 QUXGA-W (Wide)* 5120x4096 HSXGA Hexadecimal SXGA* 6400x4096 HSXGA-W (Wide)* 6400x4800 HUXGA - Hexadecimal UXGA 7680x4800 HUXGA-W (Wide)*
Then there's the movie industry 1k/2k/4k/etc. resolutions, and NTSC's specs inluding QCIF as well as the PAL spec QSIF not to mention a few dozen resolutions introduced by digital cameras and so forth and so on.. ick.
This technical differentiation is what confuses many who aren't into astronomy (or just didn't read the article;) ).
My use of 'antenna' vs 'telescope' was just the popular/public terms thereof, to make it easier to understand:)
As far as data acquisition goes, I covered that in my previous reply, but to summarize: no matter how much, and how high the quality of the data collected, the type of data does not overlap with that which Hubble collects. And that applies to most of the telescopes out there, and in proposal. Be it Compton (Gamma rays), Chandra (x-ray), Spitzer (IR) or even SOHO (only points at the sun, but then that's the whole point;) ).
As far as adaptive optics go, you're still earth-bound. You'll need at least places to put the telescope where there's little to no clouds (clouds, no matter how adaptive your array and powerful the computer, will kill optical:>). And I do say places, as a single telescope will only cover whatever part of the 'sky' is visible to the telescope (taking into account its freedom of movement). Say it's at the equator (might as well make as much use of the earth rotating as possible) - you still wouldn't be able to cover a double-conical part of the 'sky'. I'm sure there's a page that describes how many you'd actually need.
Actually, I'm a big supporter of LOFAR, so I know what data can be collected (though LOFAR is a limited to very low frequencies). My comparison was to a situation without Hubble. There simply isn't a replacement (WEBB sure won't be), and none is being proposed either.
The amount and quality of data may be larger, but it won't completely overlap Hubble. That's the major concern.
As far as pretty pictures goes - I agree, but then I'm in a stage of loving flowy, glowy, gaseous stuff right now. Unfortunately, the majority of images produced by radio astronomy lacks 'depth'.
However, I also acknowledge that the Hubble project has some excellent data-interpreters and false-color technicians that know what 'the public' would find pretty - as opposed to what the scientists behind them will find useful in terms of interpreting data before them (without looking at dozens of b/w images) - which many other projects, unfortunately, lack.
The title of this story is stupendously moot. It's like saying "oil tanker carries more weight than freight train". Yes, I'm sure it does. It also doesn't go across land.
Very similarly, this is an antenna (radio astronomy) not a telescope (optical astronomy).
Even if it were a telescope, it would still be limited by atmospheric distortions (hence why you'd want one in space).
And even if it were a telescope in space, you'd probably end up with WEBB - which lacks sensors in many of the ranges that Hubble does cover.
All of the above lead up to at least two results... 1. Less scientific data
and, arguably more important as it drives the public's opinion/enthusiasm/taxpaying-willingness/etc.
2. Far less pretty pictures.
I suggest doing a search for Hubble on Slashdot and reading the +5 Insightful/Informative posts, as many of them go into detail as to why many of the proposals simply aren't a replacement for Hubble, and why it either should stay up - or a proper replacement be built.
Whilst it might not take cool pictures, there's certainly some cool pictures of it - or, rather, the important elements of it.
Very, very spherical That is about as close to a typical POVray render reality has ever gotten. Those spheres are the most spherical objects created by mankind.
They would make excellent HDR Probe reflectors if they weren't so expensive. ( In fact, you can run the manu photos through HDRshop and derive panoramic images of whatever environment they were in. Cute. )
More on fabrication and measurement. From reading that, it appears they could've made them even more precise if they really, really wanted to (i.e. would be able to put up with tossing out even more of the spheres than they already did).
Judging from the gamut chart for this RGBCMY, the boost in color range is primarily in yellows and cyans. Gold, as they note, would be a good application. Cyan.. well, that's mostly skies - and those already appear just fine on TV. A fairly decent increase in magentas/purples as well (when taking the assymetric lobe into account), but again.. not seeing its application much. Unless following the British royal family (lots of golds and purples) a lot, it doesn't appear to offer all that much. Especially considering movie people butcher things anyway (DVD gives a more stable picture, sure.. at the compromise of mpeg artifacting and even encoding issues.. twitches ever 25 frames are annoying - luckily only a few suffer from this).
On the other hand, a higher dynamic range would be immediately noticeable anywhere. A sequence with the sun glaring into the camera ? A car's headlights shining at the camera ? Highlights on objects ? Blown-out surfaces from bright lighting ?
All that could then more accurately be represented. And thanks to most things still being shot on film, or already on 10bit CCDs with, formally, underexposure but a gain for the operator, a good bit of extra range is already available in previous and current productions. Whilst RGBCMY would only really be of use for film (as in, actual film) productions, as digital cameras are in much the same RGB limbo that current displays are.
For a solution based on plain ol' RAM on an IDE / S-ATA / whatever-is-common-for-harddisks interface, without any of the stuff on there that deals with keeping the data alive when the machine is powered down.
1. My machine hardly ever powers down but more importantly 2. I don't -want- it to keep the data when powering down.
I want to just load something onto it, say a game, and play it from there. I want to assign it as a swap drive, and gain gigabytes of swap (yeah, 64bit platform is making this one less useful). I want to toss a dataset that has to be searched multiple times onto it to speed up my searches N-fold whilst not putting any redundant wear on the 'winchester'. I want silent and 'cold' operation.
But no... they're just getting fancier.. now a flash-based drive. *sigh*/me places USB pendrive solidly between index and ringfinger at a perpendicular angle
Though to be honest, I'm about to kick the drives out along with the rest of the hardware - just one big backup session of all the disks I've got, and they can go too (after cleansing the personal ones).
Same applies to my QIC-80 tapes and drives (1 internal, 1 external)
They're not that hard to find, though - just have to know where to look. In the end, there'll be a restoration company that has these drives and then some, and you can get stuff restored for a fee, and that sounds alright to me.
The good of mankind is pir^H^H^Hstea^H^H^H^Hcopyright infringement ?
Not that you directly state that, but it is implied.
If you meant the good of mankind would be served by a more free (as in speech) exchange of intellectual property, then you should engage to act to change the laws and regulations governing, in this case, copyrights - rather than implying the good of mankind lies in breaking those laws and regulations. ( civil disobediance only goes so far, and tends to apply to government )
OLEDs are a replacement for, say, LCD, CRT, Plasma and LED displays.
HDR, on the other hand, is not a replacement for any of those - it is a concept (that of a very high range, with implied (though not specified) fidelity equal to or greater than currently used) that can be used -with- all of the above.
If you can get a CRT to display at stupendously bright levels, it could qualify for a HDR display - assuming it would still keep the same or better fidelity than a 'regular' CRT next to it in the same black-to-white range.
The actual technology used by this HDR display is that of two LCDs.. One for regular display, and another low-resolution one backlit by bright white LEDs. And OLEDs could be a replacement for that setup, yes - but not for the concept of HDR itself;)
Not necessarily, but that'll depend on how much fidelity you want.
If a normal display uses 8bits per channel (256 levels) for regular black to white, and we can still see banding (if you look closely at something like a wide gradient)......then imagine what would happen if that same fidelity (256 levels) would be stretched out to go from black to 10*white (for lack of a better expression). The banding would become worse. Alternatively, the display could just go from superbright to not superbright at all, and use, say, only pure white as being superbright, and everything below (all 255 other levels) at regular display strength. Or the most upper bit, etc.
But, ideally, you would actually feed the thing a much higher fidelity, say 10bit, 12bit, 16bit, and keep, say, 1024 levels for regular black to white, using the rest for the superbright control. Or any other nicely-cut divide between them. And that would indeed require a special driver, and is what they were touting last year:) Not sure about this year, perhaps they've brought it down a bit so that it could be implemented more easily in existing solutions
It's funny that you bring up Lance Armstrong - no doubt a great athlete, and a man of strong character yet abysmal public relations - as there is some speculation as to his performance and how it might relate to: - his having had cancer - his fighting cancer - his rehabilituation after the cancer
I don't know the facts, so this is entirely speculation based on what other people have said - so don't take this as fact, accusation, or anything else, please - it'll lead up to a more generic question;)
What if his having had cancer weakened his body quite a bit. And when he started rehabilitation, he did it with one goal - to cycle once more, and be the best at it that he could be. Then his body would be trained specifically for, and 're-developed' for, this one goal - cycling. This as opposed to other cyclers whose bodies 'developed' for everything from crawling, to walking, running, doing the dishes to name something silly - and only later in life, started developing the muscle, endurance, etc. for cycling.
What if this starting out with training the body for the primary goal of cycling gives him the edge ?
Alternatively....what if the cancer, or the treatment, did something to his hormones / body's chemical balance, and thus gives him a sort of 'natural' doping ?
And now for the more generic question... What if we can actually tell this has happened to a person - that their body has developed into something that it wouldn't normally develop into (call it a mutation, or just an 'abnormal development', or whatever) ?
Would we then ban these individuals from participating in sports ?
Would we create special sports events just for them ? ( much like the Paralympics, and the Special Olympics )
The Wikipedia entry on 802.11 tech doesn't appear to offer much insight into this - other than stating which letters are supposed to be for what purpose. Taking that, would a well-encoded, high-security, high-(multi-)speed 802.11 essentially be 802.11bin? (b, i and n combined)
How about considering that the article was written by an American and posted on an American site, catering largely to (hi TiVo), Americans ? ( Americans being US citizens and all that, in this case )
Lest you suppose that every time an American reads an Australian writing on an Australian website for an Australian audience about putting "shrimp on the barbie", that said American will ponder what lewd acts of bestiality the people down under perform on their children's toy dolls.
If you want some real 'cultural insensitivity', consider the swastika : Nazi symbol, or Hindu symbol ?
Slashdot Mirror
For those not willing to wait for the movie download, or don't care for a movie, or are waiting for an MPG format version or whatever...
Lunar Eclipse caught in a single image
( Thanks to cozzy for the URL )
Is there a comprehensive list of :
:)
- Currently active TLDs (be it cc, g, s or otherwise)
- Deprecated TLDs
- Proposed TLDs
?
I've got one myself ( http://www.pointzero.nl/dump/domains.xml - don't complain about non-validation, it's only for quick data-reading ), which I already see I need to edit some ( thanks, wikipedia ) - but can't quite seem to find any other comprehensive list in existance to bring it up to current affairs.
Oh, and any blatant errors in the xml's data ? Feel free to point them out
I was thinking it, hoping to see it - shame it's only score:1
The reason is this.. more and more of these 'supercomputer' entries appear to be many machines hooked up together, possibly doing a distributed calculation.
However, would projects such as SETI, GRID, and UD qualify with their many thousands of computers all hooked up and performing a distributed calculation ?
If not, then what about the WETA/Pixar/ILM/Digital Domain/Blur/You-name-it renderfarms ? Any one machine on those renderfarms could be put to use for only a single purpose: to render a movie sequence. Any one machine could be working on a single frame of that sequence. Does that count ?
I seem to think more and more that the answer is 'no', from my perspective. They mostly appear to me as rather simple computers (very often not even the top-of-the-line in their own class), with the only thing going for them that there are many of them.
The definition of supercomputer (thanks Google, and by linkage dictionary.reference.com ) is
And for mainframe
Doesn't the above imply that a supercomputer should really be just a single computer, and not a network or cluster of many computers ?
( The mention of 'terminals' does not mean they're nodes. Terminals are, after all, chiefly CPU-less devices intended for data entry and display only. They are not part of the mainframe's computing capabilities. )
If the above holds true, then what is *really* the world's top 3 of supercomputers ? I.e. which aren't 'simply' a cluster of nodes.
Any mistakes in the above write-up/though process ? Please do point them out
It's really not that difficult - if you're into this sort of thing.
.. maybe. Assuming that all screens remain at a 4:3 aspect ratio anyway. Wouldn't want them to become 2:3 to match traditional photos, or 16:9 for widescreen or 16:10 to match widescreen laptop displays, or 2:1 because the movie industry keeps stretching the da*n image horizontally to 'outperform' TV screens. *urgh*
;) :
But fear not... I've already seen flat panel display manufacturers label their screens in megapixels - to match digital cameras, I'm sure. That should satisfy your quest
And that's not even taking screen size (hello!), or dot pitch (if CRT) / matrix spacing (if LCD/etc) into account.
I'm not quite sure how only listing the resolution will make things easier. That said, I don't know of any site which lists *only* the acronym. Most actually seem to only list the pixels WxH.
For the curious, here's a list of acronyms and their common resolutions and such - can't say I'm familiar with UHDWMRXGA though
320x200 CGA - Color Graphics Array
320x240 QVGA - Quarter VGA
400x300 QSVGA - Quarter SVGA
640x350 EGA - Enhanced Graphics Adapter*
0640x480 VGA - Video Graphics Array
720x350 MDA - Monochrome Display Adapter*
800x600 SVGA - Super VGA
1024x768 XGA - eXtended Graphics Array
1200x800 XGAW - (Wide Laptops)*
1152x768 Apple Powerbook G4*
1152x870 Apple Macintosh*
1152x900 Sun Microsystems*
1280x1024 SXGA - Super XGA*
1400x1050 SXGA+ (Laptops)
1600x1024 SXGA-W - Wide*
1680x1050 SXGA-W (Wide Laptops)*
1600x1200 UXGA - Ultra XGA
1920x1200 UXGA-W (Wide)*
2048x1536 QXGA - Quad XGA
2560x2048 QSXGA - Quad SXGA*
3200x2048 QSXGA-W (Wide)*
3200x2400 QUXGA - Quad UXGA
3840x2400 QUXGA-W (Wide)*
5120x4096 HSXGA Hexadecimal SXGA*
6400x4096 HSXGA-W (Wide)*
6400x4800 HUXGA - Hexadecimal UXGA
7680x4800 HUXGA-W (Wide)*
Then there's the movie industry 1k/2k/4k/etc. resolutions, and NTSC's specs inluding QCIF as well as the PAL spec QSIF not to mention a few dozen resolutions introduced by digital cameras and so forth and so on.. ick.
This technical differentiation is what confuses many who aren't into astronomy (or just didn't read the article ;) ).
:)
: ;) ).
:>). And I do say places, as a single telescope will only cover whatever part of the 'sky' is visible to the telescope (taking into account its freedom of movement). Say it's at the equator (might as well make as much use of the earth rotating as possible) - you still wouldn't be able to cover a double-conical part of the 'sky'. I'm sure there's a page that describes how many you'd actually need.
My use of 'antenna' vs 'telescope' was just the popular/public terms thereof, to make it easier to understand
As far as data acquisition goes, I covered that in my previous reply, but to summarize
no matter how much, and how high the quality of the data collected, the type of data does not overlap with that which Hubble collects. And that applies to most of the telescopes out there, and in proposal. Be it Compton (Gamma rays), Chandra (x-ray), Spitzer (IR) or even SOHO (only points at the sun, but then that's the whole point
As far as adaptive optics go, you're still earth-bound. You'll need at least places to put the telescope where there's little to no clouds (clouds, no matter how adaptive your array and powerful the computer, will kill optical
Actually, I'm a big supporter of LOFAR, so I know what data can be collected (though LOFAR is a limited to very low frequencies). My comparison was to a situation without Hubble. There simply isn't a replacement (WEBB sure won't be), and none is being proposed either.
The amount and quality of data may be larger, but it won't completely overlap Hubble. That's the major concern.
As far as pretty pictures goes - I agree, but then I'm in a stage of loving flowy, glowy, gaseous stuff right now. Unfortunately, the majority of images produced by radio astronomy lacks 'depth'.
However, I also acknowledge that the Hubble project has some excellent data-interpreters and false-color technicians that know what 'the public' would find pretty - as opposed to what the scientists behind them will find useful in terms of interpreting data before them (without looking at dozens of b/w images) - which many other projects, unfortunately, lack.
The title of this story is stupendously moot. It's like saying "oil tanker carries more weight than freight train". Yes, I'm sure it does. It also doesn't go across land.
Very similarly, this is an antenna (radio astronomy) not a telescope (optical astronomy).
Even if it were a telescope, it would still be limited by atmospheric distortions (hence why you'd want one in space).
And even if it were a telescope in space, you'd probably end up with WEBB - which lacks sensors in many of the ranges that Hubble does cover.
All of the above lead up to at least two results...
1. Less scientific data
and, arguably more important as it drives the public's opinion/enthusiasm/taxpaying-willingness/etc.
2. Far less pretty pictures.
I suggest doing a search for Hubble on Slashdot and reading the +5 Insightful/Informative posts, as many of them go into detail as to why many of the proposals simply aren't a replacement for Hubble, and why it either should stay up - or a proper replacement be built.
Whilst it might not take cool pictures, there's certainly some cool pictures of it - or, rather, the important elements of it.
Very, very spherical
That is about as close to a typical POVray render reality has ever gotten. Those spheres are the most spherical objects created by mankind.
They would make excellent HDR Probe reflectors if they weren't so expensive.
( In fact, you can run the manu photos through HDRshop and derive panoramic images of whatever environment they were in. Cute. )
More on fabrication and measurement.
From reading that, it appears they could've made them even more precise if they really, really wanted to (i.e. would be able to put up with tossing out even more of the spheres than they already did).
Yeah.. not quite the same as a ticker, though :)
:/
And boy are those things expensive
I'll wait for HDR display and feeds, thanks.
Judging from the gamut chart for this RGBCMY, the boost in color range is primarily in yellows and cyans. Gold, as they note, would be a good application. Cyan.. well, that's mostly skies - and those already appear just fine on TV. A fairly decent increase in magentas/purples as well (when taking the assymetric lobe into account), but again.. not seeing its application much.
Unless following the British royal family (lots of golds and purples) a lot, it doesn't appear to offer all that much. Especially considering movie people butcher things anyway (DVD gives a more stable picture, sure.. at the compromise of mpeg artifacting and even encoding issues.. twitches ever 25 frames are annoying - luckily only a few suffer from this).
On the other hand, a higher dynamic range would be immediately noticeable anywhere.
A sequence with the sun glaring into the camera ?
A car's headlights shining at the camera ?
Highlights on objects ?
Blown-out surfaces from bright lighting ?
All that could then more accurately be represented. And thanks to most things still being shot on film, or already on 10bit CCDs with, formally, underexposure but a gain for the operator, a good bit of extra range is already available in previous and current productions.
Whilst RGBCMY would only really be of use for film (as in, actual film) productions, as digital cameras are in much the same RGB limbo that current displays are.
Hmm...
:)
:)
I dunno.. make a scrolling Viagra banner ?
Seriously - how long before this might get 'hacked' by third parties for offensive or advertising purposes ?
At the same time.. scrolling banner - I'm thinking 'stock ticker', or 'google news headlines'.
Not sure about the resolution of it all though
For a solution based on plain ol' RAM on an IDE / S-ATA / whatever-is-common-for-harddisks interface, without any of the stuff on there that deals with keeping the data alive when the machine is powered down.
/me places USB pendrive solidly between index and ringfinger at a perpendicular angle
1. My machine hardly ever powers down
but more importantly
2. I don't -want- it to keep the data when powering down.
I want to just load something onto it, say a game, and play it from there.
I want to assign it as a swap drive, and gain gigabytes of swap (yeah, 64bit platform is making this one less useful).
I want to toss a dataset that has to be searched multiple times onto it to speed up my searches N-fold whilst not putting any redundant wear on the 'winchester'.
I want silent and 'cold' operation.
But no... they're just getting fancier.. now a flash-based drive. *sigh*
Read and write, actually.
Though to be honest, I'm about to kick the drives out along with the rest of the hardware - just one big backup session of all the disks I've got, and they can go too (after cleansing the personal ones).
Same applies to my QIC-80 tapes and drives (1 internal, 1 external)
They're not that hard to find, though - just have to know where to look. In the end, there'll be a restoration company that has these drives and then some, and you can get stuff restored for a fee, and that sounds alright to me.
The good of mankind is pir^H^H^Hstea^H^H^H^Hcopyright infringement ?
Not that you directly state that, but it is implied.
If you meant the good of mankind would be served by a more free (as in speech) exchange of intellectual property, then you should engage to act to change the laws and regulations governing, in this case, copyrights - rather than implying the good of mankind lies in breaking those laws and regulations.
( civil disobediance only goes so far, and tends to apply to government )
The SNR should be much higher on this type of 'network' - that alone would be worth it for me.
I see that BitTorrent wasn't listed along with Kazaa, eDonkey and Morpheus.
Strange, as it was recently used as an example of "a responsible and legitimate use of P2P" by distributing Microsoft's Windows XP SP2.
I don't suppose this has anything to do with the SP2 torrent seeds being 'pulled' from the organizer's website at Microsoft's request (read:order) ?
I think you're confusing two things here...
;)
:s ue.asp?lv=3&mode=1&issue=002
:t opicID=232.topic ( beware of pop-up )
OLEDs are a replacement for, say, LCD, CRT, Plasma and LED displays.
HDR, on the other hand, is not a replacement for any of those - it is a concept (that of a very high range, with implied (though not specified) fidelity equal to or greater than currently used) that can be used -with- all of the above.
If you can get a CRT to display at stupendously bright levels, it could qualify for a HDR display - assuming it would still keep the same or better fidelity than a 'regular' CRT next to it in the same black-to-white range.
The actual technology used by this HDR display is that of two LCDs.. One for regular display, and another low-resolution one backlit by bright white LEDs.
And OLEDs could be a replacement for that setup, yes - but not for the concept of HDR itself
For more on HDR
http://www.debevec.org/
http://http://www.trinisica.com/sub_learn_typedis
And HDR and fidelity
http://www.pointzero.nl/sf/reffect_scale/ ( see the chart in section 2 )
http://p067.ezboard.com/fhdrshopfrm1.showMessage?
Not necessarily, but that'll depend on how much fidelity you want.
...then imagine what would happen if that same fidelity (256 levels) would be stretched out to go from black to 10*white (for lack of a better expression). The banding would become worse.
:)
If a normal display uses 8bits per channel (256 levels) for regular black to white, and we can still see banding (if you look closely at something like a wide gradient)...
Alternatively, the display could just go from superbright to not superbright at all, and use, say, only pure white as being superbright, and everything below (all 255 other levels) at regular display strength.
Or the most upper bit, etc.
But, ideally, you would actually feed the thing a much higher fidelity, say 10bit, 12bit, 16bit, and keep, say, 1024 levels for regular black to white, using the rest for the superbright control. Or any other nicely-cut divide between them. And that would indeed require a special driver, and is what they were touting last year
Not sure about this year, perhaps they've brought it down a bit so that it could be implemented more easily in existing solutions
It's funny that you bring up Lance Armstrong - no doubt a great athlete, and a man of strong character yet abysmal public relations - as there is some speculation as to his performance and how it might relate to :
;)
- his having had cancer
- his fighting cancer
- his rehabilituation after the cancer
I don't know the facts, so this is entirely speculation based on what other people have said - so don't take this as fact, accusation, or anything else, please - it'll lead up to a more generic question
What if his having had cancer weakened his body quite a bit.
And when he started rehabilitation, he did it with one goal - to cycle once more, and be the best at it that he could be.
Then his body would be trained specifically for, and 're-developed' for, this one goal - cycling.
This as opposed to other cyclers whose bodies 'developed' for everything from crawling, to walking, running, doing the dishes to name something silly - and only later in life, started developing the muscle, endurance, etc. for cycling.
What if this starting out with training the body for the primary goal of cycling gives him the edge ?
Alternatively....what if the cancer, or the treatment, did something to his hormones / body's chemical balance, and thus gives him a sort of 'natural' doping ?
And now for the more generic question...
What if we can actually tell this has happened to a person - that their body has developed into something that it wouldn't normally develop into (call it a mutation, or just an 'abnormal development', or whatever) ?
Would we then ban these individuals from participating in sports ?
Would we create special sports events just for them ? ( much like the Paralympics, and the Special Olympics )
Have you read the wiki entry at all ?
Or even looked this up ?
It can point either which way for both - though the Nazi's preferred the 'clockwise'-pointing variant.
So, no.. I don't think it does depend on which way it's pointing.
Wasn't 802.11i supposed to bring vastly improved security ?
IEEE Approves 802.11i
Does 802.11n incorporate the ideas from 802.11i ?
The Wikipedia entry on 802.11 tech doesn't appear to offer much insight into this - other than stating which letters are supposed to be for what purpose.
Taking that, would a well-encoded, high-security, high-(multi-)speed 802.11 essentially be 802.11bin? (b, i and n combined)
jpg2html
How about considering that the article was written by an American and posted on an American site, catering largely to (hi TiVo), Americans ?
( Americans being US citizens and all that, in this case )
Lest you suppose that every time an American reads an Australian writing on an Australian website for an Australian audience about putting "shrimp on the barbie", that said American will ponder what lewd acts of bestiality the people down under perform on their children's toy dolls.
If you want some real 'cultural insensitivity', consider the swastika : Nazi symbol, or Hindu symbol ?
Wait.. hold on..
If we shouldn't vote for the lesser evil..
Do you mean to say we should vote for.. the greater evil ?