It's like playing the best of 30 rounds of rock-paper-scissors where you have to stick with your original choice for all 30 rounds but get to swap places with your neighbors between rounds if you see their opponent making the throw that you know you can beat.
I have seen captured video of pro quake and counterstrike players in which they reacted to something, aimed, fired, and aimed back on their original course, all within the span of a single frame. That is, the crosshair was never rendered on-screen as pointing at their target.
A) False. Consider a simple game in which you press the right arrow when you see a light flash, and your character begins moving to the right at 10 pixels per frame. When you see the light flash, assume you have zero reaction time and press the right arrow immediately. With no input latency, the next frame will show your character moved 10 pixels to the right. With half a frame of input latency he will be moved only 5 pixels to the right.
B) You also assume here that reactions are only made to visual stimulus. Audio output from games has much lower latency (the length of the buffer, which might be 1ms). In the above example game, the light might have flashed and there been an accompanying beep a single audio sample after the last frame, which means that reacting instantly gives me an entire extra frame (9.999999 pixels) head start.
Can you elaborate on any reasoning or statistical high-probability linkage between needing a heart transplant and having transplant-worthy eyes / kidneys / etc?
Someone at Comcast seems to already be on this. My connection goes to shit when I use BT, including latency and packet loss, but magically my numbers on that particular test stay nearly ideal.
it only becomes a mess if you try to use it to compare to your ancient hardware
Since the people asking this question have "ancient hardware", and that "ancient hardware" is anywhere from 2 to 5 years old, and 10%-150% the speed of the hardware we are considering buying, it's a comparison that we need to make.
Also, heaven forbid you try to do cross-vendor AND cross-generation comparisons. How do a nvidia 8800 and gt240 and ati 1800 and 9250 compare to each other? These are all plausible cards to have in a recent or current gaming rig.
How about monotonically increasing "make" and sub-"model" numbers? When speed increases without new features, increment the model. When features increase then increment the make (and possibly reset the model). This is a system that has served consumers well in dozens of fields for decades.
nVidia had it right, prior to the GT* line. For about 8 years all nvidia gpus were numbered XYZZ, with X being the "make", Y being the "model", and ZZ being minor revision numbers. A 5500 is faster than a 5200 with a similar feature set, and faster than a 6200 but with less features, and slower than a 4800 but with more features.
Intel had it right, from the P to the P4, with a PX/YYYY numbering scheme. A P3/800 is faster than a P4/500 but with less features. The celeron line confused things a little, but had a single feature different from the equivalently numbered pentium. But now it's a mess.
It's shocking to me how many "computer scientists" don't grasp the fundamental nature of computer science. You'll continue to be misusing the term until you understand that computer science has nothing to do with what you think of as computers.
"Work for hire" is not just something that goes in a contract. It is a legal term with relatively well legislated definitions. When someone pays you to write code for them, it is a work for hire. The reason this term is often used in contracts is because otherwise there can be some dispute later over whether the terms of the agreement were outside the scope of the legal definition, while if you explicitly say "this is a work for hire" then there's no room to argue.
One of the prerequisites for owning an iPhone is having more money than sense, and being willing to spend it on frivolous things that are free/cheap elsewhere. That has applied to most Apple products throughout history. Take almost any application available for free on Linux, and there is someone publishing a $20 shareware equivalent for Mac OS(X), and hundreds to tens of thousands of Mac users paying for it.
If I had a dollar for every time someone asked me (who carries and has access to a lot of random hardware on a regular basis) for an iP____ charger, when I had access to dozens of normal standard (usb, barrel plug, etc) chargers... I'd have a lot of dollars.
Congress can force the govt to place works they have the right to. They can't (ok, they can, but likely won't, and shouldn't) force a creator to give up the rights to a work just because the govt wants to use it.
The contractor hereby grants to the Government a paid-up license throughout the world to all such works to which he may assert or establish any claim under design patent or copyright laws
Two separate counter-points:
A) Did Mr Gaylord give Cooper-Lecky any rights on which to assert/establish claims? I have entered many contests for software development where the terms are basically "you give us no rights, now. if we like your entry, then we will negotiate to buy a license from you". I don't see how this is an unlikely or if-accurate-then-unfair situation for such a monument design contest.
B) Even if Gaylord authorized Cooper-Lecky to provide all the designs to the Govt, which he may not have (see A), it is likely that that license or those terms did not allow for the Govt to then relicense the work. If I give you an exclusive license to publish a book that I write, I am not necessarily giving you the right to re-license the work to other publishers, or to make claims against (or indemnify against such claims) other infringers on my rights.
When I sketched a potential WTC monument, I assigned no rights to anyone. If someone later finds that sketch, likes it, and builds the monument, they have infringed upon my copyright. Anyone who later takes a picture of the monument further infringes. This seems pretty straightforward, and I have done nothing wrong.
Not true. Copyright infringement is also a criminal matter. If the state can prove that you did NOT create the work then it doesn't matter who did, you are guilty of infringement.
The original author[s] doesn't have to stake a claim to it. He fixed it in a tangible form, and is thus granted copyright over the work according to the various laws of the US and international treaties. The researchers here are violating his copyright by distributing copies of his work (the photos).
If I make a noise of N volume, you make a noise of N-M volume, and bob makes a noise of N-3M volume, bob is 3 times quieter than you. Quiet is relative. Quieter is a measure of the difference between differences.
Most of what you listed is on the [More] dropdown in the top right corner. I remain unimpressed, to the point of not bothering to figure out why I don't get the context menu in question.
I maintain public and private maps for a number of businesses, organizations, and events. I submit map data corrections both directly to google and previously to their map data providers on a weekly basis. I regularly use their walking directions and topographic maps to plan bicycle treks. I have implemented multiple business and gaming oriented applications including or built around the maps API. I am a Google Maps power-user...
And I never knew that there was right click functionality on the main maps interface. When I right click, I get the normal right-click-on-an-image context menu (View Image, Copy Image, Copy Image Location, Save Image, etc). What does that menu do for you? In what way is the site broken without it?
What makes you think it's hard to reverse engineer? The algorithms are published. No security through obscurity here. Security through a system that works.
Knowing how the keyfob works doesn't help you predict what numbers MY keyfob is going to display.
You are implying that [you believe that [Blizzard means that]] each Campaign in SC2 will be 3x the length of the equivalent campaign in SC1. I find this prediction [or claim] laughable.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like playing the best of 30 rounds of rock-paper-scissors where you have to stick with your original choice for all 30 rounds but get to swap places with your neighbors between rounds if you see their opponent making the throw that you know you can beat.
Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to want to fly from London to LA in 90 minutes. And no market for the same.
I have seen captured video of pro quake and counterstrike players in which they reacted to something, aimed, fired, and aimed back on their original course, all within the span of a single frame. That is, the crosshair was never rendered on-screen as pointing at their target.
A) False. Consider a simple game in which you press the right arrow when you see a light flash, and your character begins moving to the right at 10 pixels per frame. When you see the light flash, assume you have zero reaction time and press the right arrow immediately. With no input latency, the next frame will show your character moved 10 pixels to the right. With half a frame of input latency he will be moved only 5 pixels to the right.
B) You also assume here that reactions are only made to visual stimulus. Audio output from games has much lower latency (the length of the buffer, which might be 1ms). In the above example game, the light might have flashed and there been an accompanying beep a single audio sample after the last frame, which means that reacting instantly gives me an entire extra frame (9.999999 pixels) head start.
Can you elaborate on any reasoning or statistical high-probability linkage between needing a heart transplant and having transplant-worthy eyes / kidneys / etc?
Someone at Comcast seems to already be on this. My connection goes to shit when I use BT, including latency and packet loss, but magically my numbers on that particular test stay nearly ideal.
it only becomes a mess if you try to use it to compare to your ancient hardware
Since the people asking this question have "ancient hardware", and that "ancient hardware" is anywhere from 2 to 5 years old, and 10%-150% the speed of the hardware we are considering buying, it's a comparison that we need to make.
Also, heaven forbid you try to do cross-vendor AND cross-generation comparisons. How do a nvidia 8800 and gt240 and ati 1800 and 9250 compare to each other? These are all plausible cards to have in a recent or current gaming rig.
How about monotonically increasing "make" and sub-"model" numbers? When speed increases without new features, increment the model. When features increase then increment the make (and possibly reset the model). This is a system that has served consumers well in dozens of fields for decades.
nVidia had it right, prior to the GT* line. For about 8 years all nvidia gpus were numbered XYZZ, with X being the "make", Y being the "model", and ZZ being minor revision numbers. A 5500 is faster than a 5200 with a similar feature set, and faster than a 6200 but with less features, and slower than a 4800 but with more features.
Intel had it right, from the P to the P4, with a PX/YYYY numbering scheme. A P3/800 is faster than a P4/500 but with less features. The celeron line confused things a little, but had a single feature different from the equivalently numbered pentium. But now it's a mess.
It's shocking to me how many "computer scientists" don't grasp the fundamental nature of computer science. You'll continue to be misusing the term until you understand that computer science has nothing to do with what you think of as computers.
Since "HD" has been commonplace in consumer LCD monitors for 5+ years now, I don't see what you are trying to say here.
"Work for hire" is not just something that goes in a contract. It is a legal term with relatively well legislated definitions. When someone pays you to write code for them, it is a work for hire. The reason this term is often used in contracts is because otherwise there can be some dispute later over whether the terms of the agreement were outside the scope of the legal definition, while if you explicitly say "this is a work for hire" then there's no room to argue.
One of the prerequisites for owning an iPhone is having more money than sense, and being willing to spend it on frivolous things that are free/cheap elsewhere. That has applied to most Apple products throughout history. Take almost any application available for free on Linux, and there is someone publishing a $20 shareware equivalent for Mac OS(X), and hundreds to tens of thousands of Mac users paying for it.
If I had a dollar for every time someone asked me (who carries and has access to a lot of random hardware on a regular basis) for an iP____ charger, when I had access to dozens of normal standard (usb, barrel plug, etc) chargers... I'd have a lot of dollars.
Congress can force the govt to place works they have the right to. They can't (ok, they can, but likely won't, and shouldn't) force a creator to give up the rights to a work just because the govt wants to use it.
The contractor hereby grants to the Government a paid-up license throughout the world to all such works to which he may assert or establish any claim under design patent or copyright laws
Two separate counter-points:
A) Did Mr Gaylord give Cooper-Lecky any rights on which to assert/establish claims? I have entered many contests for software development where the terms are basically "you give us no rights, now. if we like your entry, then we will negotiate to buy a license from you". I don't see how this is an unlikely or if-accurate-then-unfair situation for such a monument design contest.
B) Even if Gaylord authorized Cooper-Lecky to provide all the designs to the Govt, which he may not have (see A), it is likely that that license or those terms did not allow for the Govt to then relicense the work. If I give you an exclusive license to publish a book that I write, I am not necessarily giving you the right to re-license the work to other publishers, or to make claims against (or indemnify against such claims) other infringers on my rights.
"Being under contract to the govt" seems to be inaccurate. Citation needed.
When I sketched a potential WTC monument, I assigned no rights to anyone. If someone later finds that sketch, likes it, and builds the monument, they have infringed upon my copyright. Anyone who later takes a picture of the monument further infringes. This seems pretty straightforward, and I have done nothing wrong.
Not true. Copyright infringement is also a criminal matter. If the state can prove that you did NOT create the work then it doesn't matter who did, you are guilty of infringement.
The original author[s] doesn't have to stake a claim to it. He fixed it in a tangible form, and is thus granted copyright over the work according to the various laws of the US and international treaties. The researchers here are violating his copyright by distributing copies of his work (the photos).
Get a few hundred million 800x480 screens into the wild and maybe some web developers will take notice and start developing more accessible pages?
If I make a noise of N volume, you make a noise of N-M volume, and bob makes a noise of N-3M volume, bob is 3 times quieter than you. Quiet is relative. Quieter is a measure of the difference between differences.
Most of what you listed is on the [More] dropdown in the top right corner. I remain unimpressed, to the point of not bothering to figure out why I don't get the context menu in question.
Is "What's Here?" anything like searching for "*"?
I maintain public and private maps for a number of businesses, organizations, and events. I submit map data corrections both directly to google and previously to their map data providers on a weekly basis. I regularly use their walking directions and topographic maps to plan bicycle treks. I have implemented multiple business and gaming oriented applications including or built around the maps API. I am a Google Maps power-user...
And I never knew that there was right click functionality on the main maps interface. When I right click, I get the normal right-click-on-an-image context menu (View Image, Copy Image, Copy Image Location, Save Image, etc). What does that menu do for you? In what way is the site broken without it?
What makes you think it's hard to reverse engineer? The algorithms are published. No security through obscurity here. Security through a system that works.
Knowing how the keyfob works doesn't help you predict what numbers MY keyfob is going to display.
You are implying that [you believe that [Blizzard means that]] each Campaign in SC2 will be 3x the length of the equivalent campaign in SC1. I find this prediction [or claim] laughable.