Quite possibly. To get a close approximation for a normal everyday scene requires a minimum of 5 wavelengths (due to the funkiness of the eye). You would also need to filter out the light you aren't using.
I'm not sure how you could combine large numbers of diffraction gratings. The gratings would collapse into an incoherent mess if there were too many of them, and the emulsion would have to be thick (relative - it's still very thin to us) so that the gratings would make a deep volume hologram for each grating to be very selective about its wavelengths.
I think we are talking about different applications. My understanding was that the point of this was to create a lens for white light. Using a hologram for this would not work because you could only make it accurate for specific wavelengths. At other wavelengths the lens would have distortions.
You can only indirectly see gravity. Proclaiming that gravity is a fact is also definitely jumping the gun. You _cannot_ prove that everytime I drop an object a few meters off the earth, that gravity will pull it to the ground. You cannot prove that conservation will happen everytime. You can't even prove it will happen tomorrow until tomorrow comes and you can test. (Ignoring solipilism).
Trying to find a distinction between the theories of gravity and conservation and the theories of relativity and QM etc is just silly. There's no difference.
Before you say things like that again, perhaps you might want to review your idea that your layman's simplified idea of biology isn't quite as complete as you might think, and that maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't suggest that biologists review their ideas when you have no idea at all.
Btw, we have dozens of senses, not 5. You need to very strictly define what a sense is if you want to count them.
In open source development, the ability to be able to fork software is considered a major asset (although most agree that it should only be done when really necessary).
What do you think about allowing the same for wikipedia articles? Consider this - say there is a long complex wikipedia page. To rewrite to make it more clear requires a single massive commit by a single person. It would be better to allow that page to be forked, then people can work on the rewrite, then tag the fork to be the main one once it's done.
What is a 'reliable moral compass', compared to an unreliable one? What evidence do the religous groups have for this? Why is a reliable moral compass therefore better to listen to than an unreliable one? What empirical data are you talking about exactly?
grr, I hated that doctor. He had some screwed up value systems. (Like the one where he gets kidnapped, then pretty much destroys the society just so he feels good).
It is totally doable. In fact I have done it on a 1024x768 LCOS which measured 2cm x1cm. Works fine. Trying to scale it up to do a large hologram would be very expensive though, especially computationally.
I'm purely arguing about the definition. It does not matter whether it works or not, it only matters whether an interference pattern is created. Since one is not, therefore it's not a hologram by definition. It can still work using a different method:)
This is not a hologram because it is not creating an interference pattern. No phase information is stored.
To make a real hologram, you do need a monochromatic light source. Before lasers they used various lamps (mercury lamp etc) that illuminate at specific wavelengths. This does kinda work, but has a very short coherence length so is bad for making analogue holograms (a hologram of an actual object). Quite possibly a lamp could be used for copying holograms or for digital holography.
You are wrong. You can release all the source code. The readline stuff will be under the GPL, and your code would be public domain. There's no problem.
Stop trolling and spreading FUD. Public domain code can integrate with GPL'ed code as long as you don't try to then put the GPL'ed code in public domain as well. And code which integrates with GPL'ed code only needs to be GPL compatible (public domain is).
Not to mention all the things it inspired, from the obvious like KDE and Gnome, to the less obvious, like creative commons, wikipedia, oasis document, the buyout of blender, and so on. Linux and the GPL inspired these things, and without these two I honestly believe that wikipedia etc would not have happened.
Oh jeez, not another clueless person bringing up the macdonalds case. MacDonalds was very clearly in the wrong -go read up on it before you look stupid again.
Hah, that constitution isn't worth anything at all. It reads like a bad joke. "You have the freedom of speech" "You have the freedom to practise whichever religion you want".... "Except where it does against the interests of the state."
Slashdot Mirror
Quite possibly. To get a close approximation for a normal everyday scene requires a minimum of 5 wavelengths (due to the funkiness of the eye). You would also need to filter out the light you aren't using.
;)
I'm not sure how you could combine large numbers of diffraction gratings. The gratings would collapse into an incoherent mess if there were too many of them, and the emulsion would have to be thick (relative - it's still very thin to us) so that the gratings would make a deep volume hologram for each grating to be very selective about its wavelengths.
Yeah, I make holograms for a living
I think we are talking about different applications. My understanding was that the point of this was to create a lens for white light. Using a hologram for this would not work because you could only make it accurate for specific wavelengths. At other wavelengths the lens would have distortions.
Then at best it would only work for exactly 3 wavelengths which isn't the same as what our eye sees.
You can only indirectly see gravity. Proclaiming that gravity is a fact is also definitely jumping the gun. You _cannot_ prove that everytime I drop an object a few meters off the earth, that gravity will pull it to the ground. You cannot prove that conservation will happen everytime. You can't even prove it will happen tomorrow until tomorrow comes and you can test. (Ignoring solipilism).
Trying to find a distinction between the theories of gravity and conservation and the theories of relativity and QM etc is just silly. There's no difference.
Before you say things like that again, perhaps you might want to review your idea that your layman's simplified idea of biology isn't quite as complete as you might think, and that maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't suggest that biologists review their ideas when you have no idea at all.
Btw, we have dozens of senses, not 5. You need to very strictly define what a sense is if you want to count them.
Um, no, it's more that the insightfulness was lost on you.
In open source development, the ability to be able to fork software is considered a major asset (although most agree that it should only be done when really necessary).
What do you think about allowing the same for wikipedia articles? Consider this - say there is a long complex wikipedia page. To rewrite to make it more clear requires a single massive commit by a single person.
It would be better to allow that page to be forked, then people can work on the rewrite, then tag the fork to be the main one once it's done.
What is a 'reliable moral compass', compared to an unreliable one? What evidence do the religous groups have for this? Why is a reliable moral compass therefore better to listen to than an unreliable one? What empirical data are you talking about exactly?
I was going to mod this funny, thinking it was just a random ID attack, then I realised you were referring to http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/0 6/0540246 as well. Depressing more than funny :(
Assuming over-ski every hill on the moon, couldn't we just use a dust-plough to push it back up.
I would have expected the sand on earth to be finer, if it's subject to abrasion a lot more, no? why is moon dust smaller?
I agreed with you right up until you said "alot".
grr, I hated that doctor. He had some screwed up value systems. (Like the one where he gets kidnapped, then pretty much destroys the society just so he feels good).
It is totally doable. In fact I have done it on a 1024x768 LCOS which measured 2cm x1cm. Works fine. Trying to scale it up to do a large hologram would be very expensive though, especially computationally.
We do have the technology to create a realtime 3D hologram, it would just require a seriously high number of machines though.
I'm purely arguing about the definition. It does not matter whether it works or not, it only matters whether an interference pattern is created. Since one is not, therefore it's not a hologram by definition. It can still work using a different method :)
I am a holographic engineer.
This is not a hologram because it is not creating an interference pattern. No phase information is stored.
To make a real hologram, you do need a monochromatic light source. Before lasers they used various lamps (mercury lamp etc) that illuminate at specific wavelengths. This does kinda work, but has a very short coherence length so is bad for making analogue holograms (a hologram of an actual object). Quite possibly a lamp could be used for copying holograms or for digital holography.
So.... if I hurt someone, and they experience pain, then it's okay because they must have deserved it because they sinned?
It's on the ball. Just buy an authentic ball, replicate the dna, put it on lots of balls, see lotsof 'authentic' balls. profit.
You are wrong. You can release all the source code. The readline stuff will be under the GPL, and your code would be public domain. There's no problem.
Stop trolling and spreading FUD. Public domain code can integrate with GPL'ed code as long as you don't try to then put the GPL'ed code in public domain as well. And code which integrates with GPL'ed code only needs to be GPL compatible (public domain is).
Not to mention all the things it inspired, from the obvious like KDE and Gnome, to the less obvious, like creative commons, wikipedia, oasis document, the buyout of blender, and so on. Linux and the GPL inspired these things, and without these two I honestly believe that wikipedia etc would not have happened.
Oh jeez, not another clueless person bringing up the macdonalds case. MacDonalds was very clearly in the wrong -go read up on it before you look stupid again.
Hah, that constitution isn't worth anything at all. It reads like a bad joke. ....
"You have the freedom of speech"
"You have the freedom to practise whichever religion you want"
"Except where it does against the interests of the state."
KStars already does this. It supports most computable controlled telescopes.