Bingo! That's the one, thankyou.. for some reason I was thinking way further back than that to the likes of the Amiga, but yeah, it was Deus Ex I was thinking of.. great game - shame about the sequel
What game does this remind me of? There was some game where there were little pods on top of all the street lamps that detected gunshots and fired back at the shooter.. for some reason I'm thinking it was Liberation on the Amiga/CD32.. or possibly even Syndicate or Syndicate Wars.. anyone know what I'm babbling on about, 'cuz I don't
haha.. actually, that's an even more bizarre reason for 3D photography to have not taken off - you'd think given the porn potential it'd have been a massive success from the start, but sadly no.
As for newsgroups in general, yes, there's a lot of porn - whether that's a good thing depends on your views, really. I've never seen any stereo porn on there (though it is avaliable in very limited quantities on the web). Usenet is not a place for the easily offended, but use your common sense and you'll be fine
It bothers me a lot that stereo photography has been around so long yet isn't ubiquitous yet. Modern digi-cams don't do this. You said it's been around for ages, I hope most people know you mean more than decades. A quick google search tells me 1839 at the latest. What is stopping it?
Glad to know I'm not the only one who feels that way.. Most people seem to feel that depth in images is just some kind of cheap gimmick, only really of interest to kids.. I beg to differ - it's a *major* part of the information in any given scene. I'd understand the apathy if it was an extremely complex thing to implement, but it isn't! You can even get fairly decent results (on a still scene) with a single camera by taking two shots a short distance apart, and if you want to get a bit fancier, fixing two digital cameras together and wiring them to the same trigger can be pretty effective
You might find it worthwhile pointing your newsreader at alt.binaries.pictures.stereo - it can be pretty quiet in there for a long time, but once in a while someone will dump a bunch of stereo photos, and I've got some quite good stuff from there. Also, google for stereoscopic photography for more
Actually, if it's the same bits used in the X-Arcade joystick proper then the quality is great - there must be something missing though, because the full joystick sells for a lot more than $20
Look up trachtenberg speed math - it's a system of (cheats/optimizations) depending on your point of view, for doing mental math.. either way it lets you get a correct answer very quickly, so it's useful.
I have never seen myself as the centre of the universe, nor have I claimed to. All I have stated is that extreme claims require extreme proof. I haven't said that no proof is required for lesser claims. Now, it appears that what you're saying is that makes me susceptible to those who make false claims under the guise of simple or easily believable statements. As it happens there are four basic major types of con, the most common of which is the "something for little/nothing" con, which by it's basic nature involves an extreme claim - all the con artist can do is try and mask that claim, as in the 419 scam for instance - though most forms of that are about as subtle as a sledgehammer.
I still completely fail to see the logic underlying your reasoning here. You appear to be saying that requiring high levels of proof for extreme claims makes a person susceptible to less extreme claims. I require the level of proof appropriate to the claim. If you find yourself being conned under those circumstances it means you have misunderstood the level of claim being made, and let yourself be dazzled by insubstantial evidence for the claim ("Oh, yeah I know it SOUNDS unlikely that I'm a rich ambassador from Nigeria willing to give you millions for almost nothing, but you see, I can explain...") I suggest you read up a little on the principles of risk assessment - the basics are very simple, it's a combination of the chances of being wrong (i.e. the claim being false) and the consequences of that being the case. In a situation where you're sending money, especially large sums, although the first part, the claim, may be minor (i.e. plausible), the second part, the consequences if wrong, are quite major depending on the amount of money involved. By concentrating entirely on the first aspect I would suggest that it is you rather than me who makes themselves vulnerable to being scammed.
At any rate, I live comfortably in the knowledge that in I have never yet been scammed out of anything by anybody, and not for lack of people trying, so my methods appear to be serving me well
You're saying I'm gulliable because I require proof that fits the magnitiude of the claim being made? Would you care to elaborate on that, as I fail to see how that works exactly... your reply would rather better fit the grandparent's claim of equal proof being fit for any claim no matter how grand (i.e. a photo for proof of owning a unicorn being as acceptable as a photo for proof of owning a cat)
Interesting.. Right now I'm about halfway through The Emperor' s New Mind (bought on a whim the other day, because it looked kinda interesting and was marked down), which is my first encounter with Penrose, and I have to say I've had very much the same feeling about him. Kinda nice to know I'm not the only one who feels that way. Still an interesting read though:)
What I've never understood is, would that be with the "same" atoms, or atoms drawn from an elemental stock room
IANAP - anyone more qualified feel free to correct me if wrong, but... As far as I'm aware the answer to this doesn't actually matter. To give an example, let's substitute you for a word (as in a word of text), and your atoms for the letters that make up the word
Get to any place on your computer where you can type. Type out a word, say, your name: "Esion" now, place your cursor next to the s and hit backspace.. now hit the s key again...
What just happened? you deleted the letter s then immediately replaced it. Question is, is that the *same* letter s that was there before you deleted it, or a different one? - answer: it doesn't matter, there's no way to tell*
(* Yes, getting really picky you could trawl through the computer's memory to see if the first and second S's were stored in different memory locations, that would be a difference, but let's assume were both stored in the exact same part of the computer's memory)
Surely your objection there is only to a device which teleports *instantly* - like a fax machine which spits out the output at the exact same time as reading the input.
if you think of a teleporter more like a conventional fax machine - where it scans the input (subatomic structure, or whatever), encodes it as data, transmits it to the output node (non-instantaneously) then rebuilds it at the other end from the data.. then it's just a very difficult physics problem, isn't it? rather than an impossible one. Okay, quantum uncertainty would probably get in the way of scanning/rebuilding the object, but the basic concept of teleportation isn't all that unreasonable is it?
Intresting point. I am not a physicist, but while I have many objections against psychic teleportation (mainly on the psychic part, actually), this isn't one of them.. correct me if I'm wrong here, but in your example of teleporting something up to create a perpetual motion machine, that only works assuming it takes less energy to teleport the object than it would to lift it otherwise. As a totally unfounded guess I would expect a teleporter to require a hell of a lot of energy.. just.. well.. because it seems like it should, really.
The one about teleporting something down is pretty interesting though:)
It is perfectly reasonable to require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. for example, if I say to you that I have a pet cat.. well, that's such an unremarkable claim you probably wouldn't even want any evidence.. or at most, perhaps a photo.
If, on the other hand, I told you I have a pet unicorn or dragon.. well, that IS a pretty extraordinary claim, you'd probably want to see photos (and check they're not fakes), video, maybe make a visit to see it in real life, have a qualified vet look at it, and so on.
Re:working backwards
on
Flying By Brain
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Alternatively... the chicken came first.. it was hatched from something that was almost, but not quite, what we'd recognise as a chicken egg.
Of course, with the chicken being the more complex of the two objects there are more potential variations to make it an almost-chicken rather than for the egg to be an almost-egg, but it's still a possibility:)
5. 3 dimensional display as a transparent globe that we look into to view projected images. This would allow 3-D viewing, and would vastly assist all manner of medical and engineering processes
We notice that your recent post titled "Dear Slashdot" contains unauthorised use of the words "cease" and "desist", and furthermore is a cease and desist notice. As I am the holder of the patent for "Method of causing cessation and desisting of activities by a third party via the means of sending a 'cease and desist' notice" I require you to immediately cease and desist in your use of cease and desist notices.
Huh? If you're not in orbit, you're not rendezvous-ing with anything that is in orbit. Well, you might rendezvous with it, but you'd basically be a kinetic kill vehicle, and then everybody's sad.
And that, surely, would be the twisted brainwrong of a one-off manmental
"Microsoft will steal a march.." Sure, it starts with stealing a march.. then it's an April, followed by May and June, and before you know it you're wandering around with half an ill-gotten year bulging beneath your jacket.. after that it's down the slippery slope to stealing days of the week, and even whole decades if the habit goes unchecked.
Now what's worse? Grabbing a few little MP3s for listening on the go, or depriving the whole world of entire chunks of history. I think we know who the REAL criminals are here.
Urr.. yes.. 1411 Kbps UNCOMPRESSED You are aware of compression, aren't you? y'know.. that whole MP3 thing? I know it's lossy, but it would be rather pointless if MP3 at 14% the bitrate was 14% the quality of uncompressed - you might as well just drop the uncompressed bitrate.
IMO MP3 at 128 is listenable, but a bit on the rough side, and if I was paying for MP3s I'd want them to be at least 160
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo! That's the one, thankyou.. for some reason I was thinking way further back than that to the likes of the Amiga, but yeah, it was Deus Ex I was thinking of.. great game - shame about the sequel
What game does this remind me of? There was some game where there were little pods on top of all the street lamps that detected gunshots and fired back at the shooter.. for some reason I'm thinking it was Liberation on the Amiga/CD32.. or possibly even Syndicate or Syndicate Wars.. anyone know what I'm babbling on about, 'cuz I don't
haha.. actually, that's an even more bizarre reason for 3D photography to have not taken off - you'd think given the porn potential it'd have been a massive success from the start, but sadly no.
As for newsgroups in general, yes, there's a lot of porn - whether that's a good thing depends on your views, really. I've never seen any stereo porn on there (though it is avaliable in very limited quantities on the web). Usenet is not a place for the easily offended, but use your common sense and you'll be fine
It bothers me a lot that stereo photography has been around so long yet isn't ubiquitous yet. Modern digi-cams don't do this. You said it's been around for ages, I hope most people know you mean more than decades. A quick google search tells me 1839 at the latest. What is stopping it?
Glad to know I'm not the only one who feels that way..
Most people seem to feel that depth in images is just some kind of cheap gimmick, only really of interest to kids.. I beg to differ - it's a *major* part of the information in any given scene. I'd understand the apathy if it was an extremely complex thing to implement, but it isn't! You can even get fairly decent results (on a still scene) with a single camera by taking two shots a short distance apart, and if you want to get a bit fancier, fixing two digital cameras together and wiring them to the same trigger can be pretty effective
You might find it worthwhile pointing your newsreader at alt.binaries.pictures.stereo - it can be pretty quiet in there for a long time, but once in a while someone will dump a bunch of stereo photos, and I've got some quite good stuff from there. Also, google for stereoscopic photography for more
Actually, if it's the same bits used in the X-Arcade joystick proper then the quality is great - there must be something missing though, because the full joystick sells for a lot more than $20
I just found a good little example of some of the concepts in the trachtenberg system here
Look up trachtenberg speed math - it's a system of (cheats/optimizations) depending on your point of view, for doing mental math.. either way it lets you get a correct answer very quickly, so it's useful.
I have never seen myself as the centre of the universe, nor have I claimed to.
All I have stated is that extreme claims require extreme proof. I haven't said that no proof is required for lesser claims. Now, it appears that what you're saying is that makes me susceptible to those who make false claims under the guise of simple or easily believable statements. As it happens there are four basic major types of con, the most common of which is the "something for little/nothing" con, which by it's basic nature involves an extreme claim - all the con artist can do is try and mask that claim, as in the 419 scam for instance - though most forms of that are about as subtle as a sledgehammer.
I still completely fail to see the logic underlying your reasoning here. You appear to be saying that requiring high levels of proof for extreme claims makes a person susceptible to less extreme claims. I require the level of proof appropriate to the claim. If you find yourself being conned under those circumstances it means you have misunderstood the level of claim being made, and let yourself be dazzled by insubstantial evidence for the claim ("Oh, yeah I know it SOUNDS unlikely that I'm a rich ambassador from Nigeria willing to give you millions for almost nothing, but you see, I can explain...")
I suggest you read up a little on the principles of risk assessment - the basics are very simple, it's a combination of the chances of being wrong (i.e. the claim being false) and the consequences of that being the case. In a situation where you're sending money, especially large sums, although the first part, the claim, may be minor (i.e. plausible), the second part, the consequences if wrong, are quite major depending on the amount of money involved. By concentrating entirely on the first aspect I would suggest that it is you rather than me who makes themselves vulnerable to being scammed.
At any rate, I live comfortably in the knowledge that in I have never yet been scammed out of anything by anybody, and not for lack of people trying, so my methods appear to be serving me well
You're saying I'm gulliable because I require proof that fits the magnitiude of the claim being made? Would you care to elaborate on that, as I fail to see how that works exactly... your reply would rather better fit the grandparent's claim of equal proof being fit for any claim no matter how grand (i.e. a photo for proof of owning a unicorn being as acceptable as a photo for proof of owning a cat)
Interesting.. Right now I'm about halfway through The Emperor' s New Mind (bought on a whim the other day, because it looked kinda interesting and was marked down), which is my first encounter with Penrose, and I have to say I've had very much the same feeling about him. Kinda nice to know I'm not the only one who feels that way. Still an interesting read though :)
What I've never understood is, would that be with the "same" atoms, or atoms drawn from an elemental stock room
IANAP - anyone more qualified feel free to correct me if wrong, but...
As far as I'm aware the answer to this doesn't actually matter. To give an example, let's substitute you for a word (as in a word of text), and your atoms for the letters that make up the word
Get to any place on your computer where you can type. Type out a word, say, your name: "Esion" now, place your cursor next to the s and hit backspace.. now hit the s key again...
What just happened? you deleted the letter s then immediately replaced it. Question is, is that the *same* letter s that was there before you deleted it, or a different one? - answer: it doesn't matter, there's no way to tell*
(* Yes, getting really picky you could trawl through the computer's memory to see if the first and second S's were stored in different memory locations, that would be a difference, but let's assume were both stored in the exact same part of the computer's memory)
I am not a physicist, or even close, but....
Surely your objection there is only to a device which teleports *instantly* - like a fax machine which spits out the output at the exact same time as reading the input.
if you think of a teleporter more like a conventional fax machine - where it scans the input (subatomic structure, or whatever), encodes it as data, transmits it to the output node (non-instantaneously) then rebuilds it at the other end from the data.. then it's just a very difficult physics problem, isn't it? rather than an impossible one. Okay, quantum uncertainty would probably get in the way of scanning/rebuilding the object, but the basic concept of teleportation isn't all that unreasonable is it?
Intresting point. I am not a physicist, but while I have many objections against psychic teleportation (mainly on the psychic part, actually), this isn't one of them.. correct me if I'm wrong here, but in your example of teleporting something up to create a perpetual motion machine, that only works assuming it takes less energy to teleport the object than it would to lift it otherwise. As a totally unfounded guess I would expect a teleporter to require a hell of a lot of energy.. just.. well.. because it seems like it should, really.
:)
The one about teleporting something down is pretty interesting though
It is perfectly reasonable to require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. for example, if I say to you that I have a pet cat.. well, that's such an unremarkable claim you probably wouldn't even want any evidence.. or at most, perhaps a photo.
If, on the other hand, I told you I have a pet unicorn or dragon.. well, that IS a pretty extraordinary claim, you'd probably want to see photos (and check they're not fakes), video, maybe make a visit to see it in real life, have a qualified vet look at it, and so on.
Alternatively... the chicken came first.. it was hatched from something that was almost, but not quite, what we'd recognise as a chicken egg.
:)
Of course, with the chicken being the more complex of the two objects there are more potential variations to make it an almost-chicken rather than for the egg to be an almost-egg, but it's still a possibility
...but they'll need a pretty big catapult. Coffins are heavy
Or does anyone else feel a sudden overwhelming urge to buy a slashdot subscription...
I hope not. I left my inline skates at home, and I'm not elite enough to pull of a totally righteous hack on some big metal like a Gibson. Dude.
5. 3 dimensional display as a transparent globe that we look into to view projected images. This would allow 3-D viewing, and would vastly assist all manner of medical and engineering processes
:)
Already done
Urr.. can I get my $1M now?
We notice that your recent post titled "Dear Slashdot" contains unauthorised use of the words "cease" and "desist", and furthermore is a cease and desist notice. As I am the holder of the patent for "Method of causing cessation and desisting of activities by a third party via the means of sending a 'cease and desist' notice" I require you to immediately cease and desist in your use of cease and desist notices.
Yours spuriously,
Sue Eweblind
Pardner
Yee-Haw Legal Cowboys inc.
Huh? If you're not in orbit, you're not rendezvous-ing with anything that is in orbit. Well, you might rendezvous with it, but you'd basically be a kinetic kill vehicle, and then everybody's sad.
And that, surely, would be the twisted brainwrong of a one-off manmental
"Microsoft will steal a march.."
Sure, it starts with stealing a march.. then it's an April, followed by May and June, and before you know it you're wandering around with half an ill-gotten year bulging beneath your jacket.. after that it's down the slippery slope to stealing days of the week, and even whole decades if the habit goes unchecked.
Now what's worse? Grabbing a few little MP3s for listening on the go, or depriving the whole world of entire chunks of history. I think we know who the REAL criminals are here.
I mean, what's the point if you don't bring the amulet of Yendor back out with you?
Come on, that's just a blatant taking of an opportunity to show off the music you're in to...
good man, anyways tho.. Ceephax is ace, and doesn't get nearly half the attention of his big bruv (who is also excellent)
Urr.. yes.. 1411 Kbps UNCOMPRESSED
You are aware of compression, aren't you? y'know.. that whole MP3 thing? I know it's lossy, but it would be rather pointless if MP3 at 14% the bitrate was 14% the quality of uncompressed - you might as well just drop the uncompressed bitrate.
IMO MP3 at 128 is listenable, but a bit on the rough side, and if I was paying for MP3s I'd want them to be at least 160