What makes this pattern interesting is not what it is, but what it is not. It's like you can hear a quantum entanglement with the poem it is not, but easily might have been. A lesser poet would have written: "TIGer, TIGer, BURNing BRIGHTly", which would be a metrical form called "trochaic quadrameter".
I am having a hard time believing that you honestly hold in such high regard the very commonplace rhythm from such "quantum entangled" gems as Twinkle Twinkle Little Star and Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep. Dropping unstressed syllables at the end of the line is very common in poetry.
Not only are you painfully pedantic, you are also wrong. Something is said to have "jumped the shark" when you realize it has reached its peak, and it's all downhill from there. The Fonz jumping a shark was not the high point of the show; it was the moment when fans realized that the series' best episodes were in the past, and the inevitable march toward mediocrity was underway.
Huh? My point is that out of all the solid bodies known, I wouldn't be surprised if Mars were the only one for which the triple-point of water would be anywhere near a suitable "sea level".
You're making a distinction that does not exist. Check out "spatial resolution" on Google. The first two hits I see are "Number of pixels horizontally and vertically in a digital image" and "The ability to form separable images of close objects". On Wikipedia, "spatial resolution" redirects to angular resolution which defintes "resolution" as "the minimum distance between distinguishable objects in an image". Strangely, I have yet to see a definition that refers to the effective size of a pixel.
But the point is that none of them refer to the power of a human to interpret the image. That's the part I was objecting to.
The canonical requirement is 3+ pixels to be sure you're detecting what you think you're detecting. So, the actual resolving power is about 1 meter.
Resolution isn't defined as how small a thing a human can recognize. It's defined as the ability of an imaging system to separate the images of two closely adjacent objects. That's why you need three pixels: one for object A, one for the gap, and another for object B.
I like the interface. I haven't used it much -- I might get tired of it -- but my first impression is that it works pretty well. (I have a pretty powerful laptop though.)
Someone raises this inane objection every single time larger storage media are discussed. The solutions are so obvious that they hardly bear repeating, but let's start with the simplest: buy two of them.
Ok that's interesting. I made the mistake of coming off as an OpenGL expert, but really I haven't done that much of it. For instance, I have never used tesselation.:-)
Java can't do everything you want any more than Perl or Bash or Lisp could do everything you want.
Some say a universal language is impossible, and that you need different languages for different tasks. I say that's a little like medieval philosophers saying you need different epicycles for different planets, or that there's no one bodily humour that accounts for all moods. We're way too new at this programming thing to make any pronouncements about what's impossible in the realm of software engineering tools. To paraphrase Arthur C Clarke: if an expert says something is possible, he's probably right; if he says something is impossible, he's probably wrong. The languages we'll have 100 years from now will be as unlike today's languages as our modern astronomy is to ancient Ptolemy's geocentrism.
However, this universal language, whatever it is, doesn't exist yet, as far as I know, so standardizing on a single language for everything is premature.
Using OpenGL as the base for everything is much better (. ..)
Except that OpenGL, last time I checked, can't even do curves in hardware. It only does polygons. That makes implementing things like SVG pretty labour-intensive.
Other than that, I really like OpenGL. To bad OpenVG (which can do curves in hardware) seems, to me, nothing whatsoever like OpenGL, aside from the name and the function naming conventions. My favourite part: any OpenVG call can cause an out-of-memory error at any time, and can leave the graphics system in any state it wants. Yeah, that's a real winner of an API.
Therefore everything took one year longer in the BC. Two events that were a day apart at the time now appear to be one year and one day apart. For example, babies used to gestate for 21 months.
It seems to me that divergent time directions should make things look faster, not slower. Perhaps I'm ignoring speed-of-light effects somehow?
Suppose Bob and I are in different parts of the universe, and therefore have different time directions (ie. our time vectors diverge). Suppose, for instance, that our time dimensions differ by 60 degrees. When I observe Bob's clock, and assuming my eyes are limited to looking in a spatial direction (as seems to be implied by the diagrams in TFA), my observation would be at right angles to my time direction, and would be 30 degrees to Bob's time dimension. This forms a 1,2,sqrt(3) right-triangle. Therefore, every second of my time, I observe 2 seconds of Bob's time.
Can someone tell me why this is wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the end of Rusty Cage by Soundgarden is in 19/3 time. Primus has a song called Eleven that is in 11/3 time.
Why didn't they use their enormous team of lawyers to squash this? Because giving validation to software patents is in their best interest.
I think that must be some kind of confirmation of Brooks' Law. Somehow.
Not only are you painfully pedantic, you are also wrong. Something is said to have "jumped the shark" when you realize it has reached its peak, and it's all downhill from there. The Fonz jumping a shark was not the high point of the show; it was the moment when fans realized that the series' best episodes were in the past, and the inevitable march toward mediocrity was underway.
Thanks for bringing this up. I'm sure they never thought of any of these points.
Water has only one triple point. You don't get to pick a triple point for a given temperature. That's why it's a coincidence.
Huh? My point is that out of all the solid bodies known, I wouldn't be surprised if Mars were the only one for which the triple-point of water would be anywhere near a suitable "sea level".
Interesting. Seems like an amazing coincidence that the triple-point of water serves as a useful "sea level" on Mars.
But the point is that none of them refer to the power of a human to interpret the image. That's the part I was objecting to.
Counter-rotating.
I like the interface. I haven't used it much -- I might get tired of it -- but my first impression is that it works pretty well. (I have a pretty powerful laptop though.)
Uh, not really. It depends what your bytecode looks like. It can be much easier to analyze bytecode than source code.
Someone raises this inane objection every single time larger storage media are discussed. The solutions are so obvious that they hardly bear repeating, but let's start with the simplest: buy two of them.
Ok, I stand corrected. (Both on the operation of the device, and on who is dense.)
I haven't RTFA but I imagine they scan that laser to produce the image, just like a TV. No focus required.
Go watch the video. You can't do that stuff with a mouse.
Thanks for the info.
Some say a universal language is impossible, and that you need different languages for different tasks. I say that's a little like medieval philosophers saying you need different epicycles for different planets, or that there's no one bodily humour that accounts for all moods. We're way too new at this programming thing to make any pronouncements about what's impossible in the realm of software engineering tools. To paraphrase Arthur C Clarke: if an expert says something is possible, he's probably right; if he says something is impossible, he's probably wrong. The languages we'll have 100 years from now will be as unlike today's languages as our modern astronomy is to ancient Ptolemy's geocentrism.
However, this universal language, whatever it is, doesn't exist yet, as far as I know, so standardizing on a single language for everything is premature.
Other than that, I really like OpenGL. To bad OpenVG (which can do curves in hardware) seems, to me, nothing whatsoever like OpenGL, aside from the name and the function naming conventions. My favourite part: any OpenVG call can cause an out-of-memory error at any time, and can leave the graphics system in any state it wants. Yeah, that's a real winner of an API.
Therefore everything took one year longer in the BC. Two events that were a day apart at the time now appear to be one year and one day apart. For example, babies used to gestate for 21 months.
It seems to me that divergent time directions should make things look faster, not slower. Perhaps I'm ignoring speed-of-light effects somehow? Suppose Bob and I are in different parts of the universe, and therefore have different time directions (ie. our time vectors diverge). Suppose, for instance, that our time dimensions differ by 60 degrees. When I observe Bob's clock, and assuming my eyes are limited to looking in a spatial direction (as seems to be implied by the diagrams in TFA), my observation would be at right angles to my time direction, and would be 30 degrees to Bob's time dimension. This forms a 1,2,sqrt(3) right-triangle. Therefore, every second of my time, I observe 2 seconds of Bob's time. Can someone tell me why this is wrong?
I wonder why the offer the sample image as a 2MB JPG file instead of a 10KB PNG (or a 2KB SVG!).