This was observed using the National Radio Astronomy Observatory's Very Large Array, which is a (rather cool looking) group of 27 radio antennas in New Mexico. The NRAO press release on K3-35 contains somewhat more detailed information than the CNN article.
The present invention contemplates a system for reproducing information in material objects at a point of sale location wherein the information to be reproduced is provided at the point of sale location from a location remote with respect to the point of sale location, an owner authorization code is provided to the point of sale location in reponse to receiving a request code from the point of sale location requesting to reproducing predetermined information in a material object, and the predetermined information is reproduced in a material object at the point of sale location in response to receiving the owner authorization code.
Huh?
At first I was tempted to accuse the judges of being stupid for upholding this patent. But on second thought, they must be fucking geniuses if they can even tell what it means.
Why did they need to make it so large? A 4 or 5 foot display would have shown the same detail in a more palatable display area.
Have you thought perhaps they couldn't make it that small? They're already using a lot of projectors in a relatively small area, and planning to thrity-two more. As with much of electronic and computing technology, the challenge has been making it small enough to be convenient, not making it larger
Is there a pratical, scientific use for this?
Sure, I love drive-in movies, but why not just use a projector? What could possibly need a 20 million pixel display?
Well, if you actually read the article it would have answered your question:
The images are expected to allow scientists a better view of complicated systems. Sandia's immediate needs are to improve understanding of complex situations like crashes and fires, but the facility is also valuable for microsystems, nanotechnology and biological explorations. Says Heermann, "It does not make sense to view a detailed 20- or 100-million-cell simulation on a standard one-million-pixel display." Data presented as columns of numbers would be a numbing amount of information for the brain to comprehend.
A minor point here, but I think in some jurisdictions it is legal to secretly videotape someone as long as there is no sound recorded. If sound is recorded, it is considered wiretapping.
I assume that's why the submitter used the word "secretly". Don't you think?
Read it, ok?
Did you read it? Two of the justices stongly disagreed that secretly recording police misconduct is illegal. They were in the minority, but it suggests it may not be the last we hear of this case.
So the guy takes a recording of the incident to the police, and they arrest and try him for it. In addition to the fact that people need to be careful about secretly recording anyone, there's another big lesson here: if you have a dispute with the police, you need to get yourself a lawyer. And fast.
Don't fool around and try to handle things on your own, or the cops will hang you out to dry.
Can you imagine what would have happenned in the Rodney King incident had it taken place in Massachusetts? As soon as the cops found out someone had recorded them they would arrest and prosecute the guy with the camera. (I wonder if they would beat him too).
At least two of the justices had enough sense to dissent though. I hope there's a way this ruling could be appealed in the federal courts.
What about non-profit and educational institutions that provide net access? Like libraries and university computer clusters? Would they be expected to pay just like regular ISP's? Or would they be exempted? Or if this system becomes widespread, should their users just forget about accessing much of the web's content?
``Metallica has taken a courageous stand and a tough and principled approach to the protection of its name and creative output, and that of other artists,'' Napster's Barry said.
That's what Napster's Barry said, but it's really hard to imagine that's what Napster's Barry believes.
Actually, Roger Ebert gave the film 3.5 out of 4
stars
I think Ebert has stated that the criteria he uses in deciding how many stars to give a movie is how well the filmmakers have achieved what they set out to do.
While he raves about the visuals, he also says
In reviewing a movie like this, I am torn between its craft elements and its story. The story is nuts-and-bolts space opera, without the intelligence and daring of, say, Steven Spielberg's ''A.I.'' But the look of the film is revolutionary. ''Final Fantasy'' is a technical milestone, like the first talkies or 3-D movies.
That doesn't encourage me, because the first 3-D movies are so bad they're unwatchable. I just want to know whether or not the story is so silly I'll have to turn off my brain (beer helps) to enjoy the movie. And if it is silly, I wonder how long we'll have to wait to see technology like this used in more intelligent movies.
The side effect will be that we may lose the Moon in the process...
Given that life on earth has evolved under the influence of the Moon, that may be more serious a problem than most people would imagine. I wonder how many species depend upon the tides for their survival?
Ok, I'm mathematically ignorant but I'd like to know more about how they simulate these things -- in an educated layman's terms. Wouldn't two galaxies colliding be the n-body problem from hell?
but I gotta say except for the 15 min narrative to set up the story, the original movie ruled
The original movie had no cheesy 15 minute narrative. That was added later for television, and was one of the reasons David Lynch had his name removed from that version.
"It's a wonderfully complex and interesting story, in some ways a little darker than the first one," Harrison said. "Whereas the first one had a kind of triumphant quality to it, this second one is a little darker. I guess you can compare it to the difference in tone between Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back."
The director thinks Frank Herbert is comparable to George Lucas. Or at least he's so poorly read that he can't find a better analogy to make. I'm beginning to understand why the first mini-series was so disappointing, seemed so shallow and weak, and captured so little of the spirit of the novel.
Slashdot Mirror
This was observed using the National Radio Astronomy Observatory's Very Large Array, which is a (rather cool looking) group of 27 radio antennas in New Mexico. The NRAO press release on K3-35 contains somewhat more detailed information than the CNN article.
Huh?
At first I was tempted to accuse the judges of being stupid for upholding this patent. But on second thought, they must be fucking geniuses if they can even tell what it means.
Have you thought perhaps they couldn't make it that small? They're already using a lot of projectors in a relatively small area, and planning to thrity-two more. As with much of electronic and computing technology, the challenge has been making it small enough to be convenient, not making it larger
Well, if you actually read the article it would have answered your question:
A minor point here, but I think in some jurisdictions it is legal to secretly videotape someone as long as there is no sound recorded. If sound is recorded, it is considered wiretapping.
Why the difference? I don't know.
I assume that's why the submitter used the word "secretly". Don't you think?
Read it, ok?
Did you read it? Two of the justices stongly disagreed that secretly recording police misconduct is illegal. They were in the minority, but it suggests it may not be the last we hear of this case.
Don't fool around and try to handle things on your own, or the cops will hang you out to dry.
At least two of the justices had enough sense to dissent though. I hope there's a way this ruling could be appealed in the federal courts.
What about non-profit and educational institutions that provide net access? Like libraries and university computer clusters? Would they be expected to pay just like regular ISP's? Or would they be exempted? Or if this system becomes widespread, should their users just forget about accessing much of the web's content?
That's what Napster's Barry said, but it's really hard to imagine that's what Napster's Barry believes.
What he really believes is probably unprintable.
And the really ironic thing is I would have been more willing to pay for ORBS than MAPS' services.
I think Ebert has stated that the criteria he uses in deciding how many stars to give a movie is how well the filmmakers have achieved what they set out to do.
While he raves about the visuals, he also says
That doesn't encourage me, because the first 3-D movies are so bad they're unwatchable. I just want to know whether or not the story is so silly I'll have to turn off my brain (beer helps) to enjoy the movie. And if it is silly, I wonder how long we'll have to wait to see technology like this used in more intelligent movies.
Given that life on earth has evolved under the influence of the Moon, that may be more serious a problem than most people would imagine. I wonder how many species depend upon the tides for their survival?
Ok, I'm mathematically ignorant but I'd like to know more about how they simulate these things -- in an educated layman's terms. Wouldn't two galaxies colliding be the n-body problem from hell?
I assume that's at least marginally more accurate than the screen saver that comes with my Linux distribution, eh?
The original movie had no cheesy 15 minute narrative. That was added later for television, and was one of the reasons David Lynch had his name removed from that version.
From the interview:
The director thinks Frank Herbert is comparable to George Lucas. Or at least he's so poorly read that he can't find a better analogy to make. I'm beginning to understand why the first mini-series was so disappointing, seemed so shallow and weak, and captured so little of the spirit of the novel.
Yes, it was the Secret Service. And if you don't know what we're talking about, their ordeal is well documented here.