Besides which, if you're the source of some [relatively] monochromatic signal, to account for doppler shifting, you have to know in which direction others will be viewing the signal. If they're above or below your plane of rotation (i.e., on your axis of rotation), there will be a transverse doppler shift, but it won't be modulated (at whatever Hz is mentioned in the article). On the other hand, if they're NOT right on the axis, they'll notice the modulation, but the amount of shift will be dependent on the azimuthal angle, from zero on-axis to maximum at 90 degrees from the axis. Finally, to *properly* account for doppler shifting, you'd have to know from which direction (exactly) the signal will be viewed. If you think it'll be viewed from the other side of whatever you're orbiting, that's a whole 180 deg phase shift in the correction you have to make, compared to the correction you'd make if the viewer were on the line connecting object-orbited --> you --> viewer, in that order. You can "correct", in fact, to the tune of overcorrecting by 2x too much!
Short version of above: correcting for doppler shift when the viewer's direction is unknown is impossible -- it makes much more sense to NOT correct at all.
I predict that, based solely on the headline put up on/., and, of course, which day of the week it is, etc., that some articles are going to get hundreds of replies in the first hour.
Do the admins ever flag these headline articles with "120/hour, tapering off to light drizzle later" post-its, and then go back and check? I'd love to see a correlation between percieved "gotcha" factor and how many people post.
I SO wish I had mod points right now. I rarely agree with posts which've been marked "flamebait" -- and this one IS flamebait. But the poster is making a very good point. Perhaps not diplomatically, but who cares?
I hereby start the concept of virtual mod points. They're just as valid at "real" mod points, only they don't show up on YOUR computer.
Right, right. But if it's a mapping (1-1, as it seems) then there's an isomorphism, and the need to do anything in hyperspace isn't there. Just call it an arrangement with a certain number of lines from each node and be done with it. If it can be done in meat space there's no need to hyper- it up.
Run a few gigabit ethernets in a hypercube formation and you have some rapid data transfer...
Serious question here (yes, wrong place to ask one of those): "Hypercube formation"? Is this just a cubic lattice where the nodes are relatively densely packed so each can communicate with several others over not-too-far distances? What makes it "hyper"? Someone with an expertise in communications/computing theory help me out here!
Yes, the article is rife with typos, grammar problems and graphics inaccuracies. Most of the "sell" (and I'm pretty sure that's ALL this is -- a snake-oil sale) is actually vapid b.s., especially given that the claims are based upon some science which has not come about (stable molecular switches, as one poster pointed out, e.g.), some science which is really horribly described ("an Ultra Violet Photon and an Electric Field" -- photons and electric fields are THE SAME THINGS) and things which are flat-out wrong ("[nano-optical devices having] both positive and negative index of refraction" -- this has been shown to be impossible with such small structures, and the region of negative index is going to be exceedingly small with such small currents: see the Physics Today of a month or so ago).
These and several other problems make me wonder if either an editor of PhysOrg had a fun time being bought off, or someone managed to sneak that crap on the server w/out anyone noticing -- 'til/. came along.
(Oh, and IamAP, or at least play one in graduate school).
It would be very interesting to see if accelerations are dealt with properly with these things. In walking, not only do we have the "push-off" force which gets us going in some direction (push back -- with one's foot/leg -- to move forward, push left to go right, etc.) but we also have "stopping" forces (put one's foot down in front to decelerate the body's forward movement, etc.).
Presumably, with some sort of feedback algorithms, it'll be relatively easy to hold these things in place when one wants to move forward, etc. However, how are the tiles to know that you want to _stop_ "moving" (or seem like you want to)? Normally, if you stop walking, you definitely get a tactile feeling to it -- your body decelerates, your feet want to slip forward, etc. But on tiles, where your body may not have actually moved in the first place, simulating this stopping would require accelerating you in the direction opposite to the original (presumed by the tiles) movement. Might one simply get used to this sort of "movement without consequences"?
... is use those same amazing, unhackable screws that bathroom stalls are put on with. Those suckers are super secure! When civilization has its downfall, and all potentially useful metal scraps have been scavenged, we'll still have fully-assembled bathroom stalls.
I suppose that rattlesnakes and hawks are the squirrels' main predators, but surely coyotes have to take a toll. And if coyotes can hear those "silent" dog whistle things that we all know and love, then who's to say this silent scream stuff is really all that "selective" as the article says. Of course, ultrasound attenuates a bit faster than lower frequencies, so maybe it simply doesn't call predators from far away, and, instead, warns one's close neighbors.
Heh. A "total hardnut dorkass" doesn't know where to place the "bit of rubber" you're talking about. There are more important things to do, like minimize vibrations by hanging shit on a metal coat hanger. This is/., you know.
The Mill 5 is a high-output machine both for online production and for single, one-off pieces. The axes are driven by brushless motors combined with ball bearing screws. Linear guides with ball runners assure lasting quality and precision. All parts are protected by PVC bellows and lubricated with oil by a controlled centralized system.
OMG. Wait until the pron industry gets a load (ahem) of this. I forsee lawsuits....
Slashdot Mirror
Besides which, if you're the source of some [relatively] monochromatic signal, to account for doppler shifting, you have to know in which direction others will be viewing the signal. If they're above or below your plane of rotation (i.e., on your axis of rotation), there will be a transverse doppler shift, but it won't be modulated (at whatever Hz is mentioned in the article). On the other hand, if they're NOT right on the axis, they'll notice the modulation, but the amount of shift will be dependent on the azimuthal angle, from zero on-axis to maximum at 90 degrees from the axis. Finally, to *properly* account for doppler shifting, you'd have to know from which direction (exactly) the signal will be viewed. If you think it'll be viewed from the other side of whatever you're orbiting, that's a whole 180 deg phase shift in the correction you have to make, compared to the correction you'd make if the viewer were on the line connecting object-orbited --> you --> viewer, in that order. You can "correct", in fact, to the tune of overcorrecting by 2x too much!
Short version of above: correcting for doppler shift when the viewer's direction is unknown is impossible -- it makes much more sense to NOT correct at all.
Sorry, the original has now been destroyed, but somehow its first few paragraphs have ended up on /.
Is this too hard for ./'ers to comprehend?
Huh?
Huh?
I predict that, based solely on the headline put up on /., and, of course, which day of the week it is, etc., that some articles are going to get hundreds of replies in the first hour.
Do the admins ever flag these headline articles with "120/hour, tapering off to light drizzle later" post-its, and then go back and check? I'd love to see a correlation between percieved "gotcha" factor and how many people post.
Bravo :)
Oh, and just wait until the GNAA posters start noticing the "gang-tackle" bit.
I SO wish I had mod points right now. I rarely agree with posts which've been marked "flamebait" -- and this one IS flamebait. But the poster is making a very good point. Perhaps not diplomatically, but who cares?
I hereby start the concept of virtual mod points. They're just as valid at "real" mod points, only they don't show up on YOUR computer.
+5 -- insightful
Oh, good. I hope google caches the Slashdot pages. Then I'm not totally screwed.
That's actually /.'s new, blinding color scheme.
Right, right. But if it's a mapping (1-1, as it seems) then there's an isomorphism, and the need to do anything in hyperspace isn't there. Just call it an arrangement with a certain number of lines from each node and be done with it. If it can be done in meat space there's no need to hyper- it up.
Run a few gigabit ethernets in a hypercube formation and you have some rapid data transfer...
Serious question here (yes, wrong place to ask one of those): "Hypercube formation"? Is this just a cubic lattice where the nodes are relatively densely packed so each can communicate with several others over not-too-far distances? What makes it "hyper"? Someone with an expertise in communications/computing theory help me out here!
They can if you use XP SP2...
Anyone else disappointed when they read that as " Massaging Handset Reviewed" ?
Yes, the article is rife with typos, grammar problems and graphics inaccuracies. Most of the "sell" (and I'm pretty sure that's ALL this is -- a snake-oil sale) is actually vapid b.s., especially given that the claims are based upon some science which has not come about (stable molecular switches, as one poster pointed out, e.g.), some science which is really horribly described ("an Ultra Violet Photon and an Electric Field" -- photons and electric fields are THE SAME THINGS) and things which are flat-out wrong ("[nano-optical devices having] both positive and negative index of refraction" -- this has been shown to be impossible with such small structures, and the region of negative index is going to be exceedingly small with such small currents: see the Physics Today of a month or so ago).
/. came along.
These and several other problems make me wonder if either an editor of PhysOrg had a fun time being bought off, or someone managed to sneak that crap on the server w/out anyone noticing -- 'til
(Oh, and IamAP, or at least play one in graduate school).
It would be very interesting to see if accelerations are dealt with properly with these things. In walking, not only do we have the "push-off" force which gets us going in some direction (push back -- with one's foot/leg -- to move forward, push left to go right, etc.) but we also have "stopping" forces (put one's foot down in front to decelerate the body's forward movement, etc.).
Presumably, with some sort of feedback algorithms, it'll be relatively easy to hold these things in place when one wants to move forward, etc. However, how are the tiles to know that you want to _stop_ "moving" (or seem like you want to)? Normally, if you stop walking, you definitely get a tactile feeling to it -- your body decelerates, your feet want to slip forward, etc. But on tiles, where your body may not have actually moved in the first place, simulating this stopping would require accelerating you in the direction opposite to the original (presumed by the tiles) movement. Might one simply get used to this sort of "movement without consequences"?
... he's just playing, because he's looking at the data visualization window, and not reading the /. page over to the right of the display:
u m-VisIt.jpg
http://www.llnl.gov/icc/sdd/img/images/DMX-Chromi
... is use those same amazing, unhackable screws that bathroom stalls are put on with. Those suckers are super secure! When civilization has its downfall, and all potentially useful metal scraps have been scavenged, we'll still have fully-assembled bathroom stalls.
These ad guys go to far, and, of course, the media will cover up stuff like that. Free press my ass.
Ahem.
"... Especially if the people who wrote the legacy app are retired/laid off/ dead ."
Ooh. That's going to be some downtime there, bub. Maybe we can emulate them.
Dude, if you're reading /. at work, they might just take that idea and patent it. Then we're all screwed.
...maybe she wasn't, you know, using her hands...
I suppose that rattlesnakes and hawks are the squirrels' main predators, but surely coyotes have to take a toll. And if coyotes can hear those "silent" dog whistle things that we all know and love, then who's to say this silent scream stuff is really all that "selective" as the article says. Of course, ultrasound attenuates a bit faster than lower frequencies, so maybe it simply doesn't call predators from far away, and, instead, warns one's close neighbors.
Heh. A "total hardnut dorkass" doesn't know where to place the "bit of rubber" you're talking about. There are more important things to do, like minimize vibrations by hanging shit on a metal coat hanger. This is /., you know.
The Mill 5 is a high-output machine both for online production and for single, one-off pieces. The axes are driven by brushless motors combined with ball bearing screws. Linear guides with ball runners assure lasting quality and precision. All parts are protected by PVC bellows and lubricated with oil by a controlled centralized system.
OMG. Wait until the pron industry gets a load (ahem) of this. I forsee lawsuits....
... that as a "researcher at the University of Ohio"? I mean, shit, ANY wave is going to be disastrous to someone from there, right?