According to wiki, 1.3a is fine. That's also what the article says. Evidently, anything above version 1.3 supports 1920x1080 at 120 hertz.
But yeah, when you're talking about video streams with that much bandwidth, any bottleneck anywhere in an early PS3 and it's not going to work at all.
RTFA. First of all, there have been several models of TV that can actually display 120 hz and do 3d. Most of them use DLP for their light engine, but I think the very latest model LCDs can also do it. (that is, they've gotten the LCD crystals fast enough that there isn't too much ghosting between frames to do 3d)
Second, if you RTFA, you'll see it mention that the ps3 has plenty of power to display a 3d blueray movie. PS3 has ALWAYS been the best blue ray player, from the very beginning.
And finally : there are a fair number of major movies that had theater releases in 3d. Obviously Avatar is the next one up. This standard will enable home viewers to watch these films again. It will be somewhat expensive : even if you have a ps3, most folks would need a new TV, and the glasses will probably retail for $30-$50 or so a pair once it's mass market.
3d gaming is the killer app for stereoscopic displays though. It's been possible for many years, and it's a fantastic improvement in computer graphics. The next generation of consoles may just have enough graphics horsepower to make it a mainstream activity.
Is a "Space Ship 3" that reaches orbit possible with similar technology to the current line of spacecraft? Or would you have to go to a more conventional rocket design?
How's that? Color pictures are useful in many forms of textbook. In some, like medical textbooks, they are essential. (you need to have a photograph of an example of what the text is discussing. )
Very few people who are seronegative are willing to sleep with a known HIV positive partner. However, in most real interactions, the encounter isn't exactly scripted and almost no one gets STD testing done before jumping into bed.
So for this kind of activity, which is one of the most enjoyable acts on earth for men (finding a young attractive partner and having bareback sex with her), one is safer if they are circumcised.
This is true of all police matters. What makes the Amanda Knox case such a media circus is that it's so rare for it to work out like this. Had a man cut a woman's throat and taken her wallet, that man would have gotten an automatic life sentence and the media would have never even reported on it.
It's a systematic trend on the part of society to discriminate against and devalue men on every official level.
Men can't say what they think any more, even if it's true. Such talk is considered "unprofessional, sexist, etc".
Men can't act upon their most fundamental, strongest desires to pursue women because it's 'sexual harassment'. Basically anything and everything a man might do to gauge interest is sexual harassment today.
Courts consistently discriminate against men. Civil courts nearly always favor the woman in divorce and child custody disputes. Criminal courts nearly always penalize men far more harshly than women for the same crime.
And when exceptional, talented men earn more money today because they worked for it, women file equal pay lawsuits and attempt to artificially rectify the situation. Or they complain about the glass ceiling. Never mind the fact that women consistently work fewer hours and take more time off for child care, which is their right but also significantly lowers their productivity.
The reason there's 6 billion people on the planet instead of a few hundred million is because of technology. Intelligence developed technology - therefore it has an enormous survival advantage on the macroscale.
The reason we can talk so much to each other is because of technology.
"Maleness" is a brain that develops and is modified by testosterone, resulting in increased risk taking behavior and improved mapping functions and possible a whole host of subtler changes.
Due to technology, physical strength matters an enormous amount less. Hence women are now being valued more, because nearly all jobs don't need as much physical strength.
"Equal protection", statistics, discrimination suits - none of this would be possible without technology.
One possibility is that men really are smarter, just that IQ tests don't measure the most important aspects of intelligence.
Homo Sapiens are high end apes that have evolved some crucial abilities. The most important ability of all is the ability to use tools.
Even more important than that is the ability to INVENT NEW TOOLS. Our entire civilization exists because of bright men in the past who invented and engineered the technology we have today. Ironically, civilized trappings such as feminism and political correctness are only possible at all due to technology.
Anyways, as far as I know, men have done around 95-99% of the inventing. Correct me if I'm wrong. Furthermore, in many situations in real life, it's usually a male co-worker that invents a new solution to a technical problem. IQ tests can only measure the ability of a person's brain to apply existing, canned solutions to problems.
Yes, but the idea of a tablet is that it should be much lighter and smaller than a full computer. You'd be able to cart it around like a clipboard and use it in all sorts of industries. Ideally, the tablet would be about the size and weight of the screen on your laptop. It would be running a very low power usage CPU, and would have a power efficient display. Due to the slow CPU, it wouldn't be useful for a lot of things you can do with a laptop, but would be designed for working with lots of 2d documents.
Note : the e-paper screen on this device is 9.7" diagonal, which is the same size as the display on the kindle DX. Most likely it's the same part number.
This device is approaching the functionality of a truly useful electronic book. That's enough screen area to make an electronic textbook practical and close to being equivalent to the paper version. The true value of course is that you should be able to fit dozens or hundreds of books onto the machine. Plus : searchability, updates, electronic highlighting, etc.
Downside : publishers will try to destroy the used book market. They'll use DRM and various access controls to try to force every user to buy a separate copy.
Upside : open textbooks directly published by professors, available free or for under $15, will be more practical.
Obviously, the problem this device has is that at $490 it's far too expensive ($200-$300 would probably be a more practical price point). Android is still basically a beta product, and we don't know if the guts of this device are up to snuff. It needs to have a long battery life, a CPU that is beefy enough to not add long delays yet use very little power, and things like an SD card reader.
Oh contrare, the fact that you are attempting to use such a poor movie as an official canonical source of geekdom means that you are the one who should report to the nearest security checkpoint and surrender your geek identification. Oh, and bring a toothbrush - you're going to need it.
CFLs have won on price for years now. I bought 30 nvision CFLs to replace most of the bulbs in my house just a few months ago. Total cost was about 55 dollars. Nvision scored better than every other bulb, including incandescents, in testing by popular mechanics two years ago. The testing metric was a series of sample images, text, color swatches, and so forth that a group of judges used to more or less objectively compare the quality of light from each bulb tested. They could not see what kind of bulb was being used, technically making it a blind test.
Every home depot has nvisions or their rebranding 'ecosmart'. I bought them online from home depot's web site.
Short answer about heat : even if you lived in Antarctica, you'll still save much more money than CFLs cost by using them assuming your heat doesn't come from electrical resistance heating.
Are you blind? It's one thing to compare DirectX 9 versus 11 video games, where either API lets you create highly detailed, high performance graphics.
It's another to compare the gigantic difference in picture quality between 1080p/720p and craptacular 480p (at most)
The difference between high def and standard is pretty darn immediate and obvious for new content such as TV shows that were made using the right digital cameras. Film, not so much, because the darn camera and lenses in movies is often set to blur hard edges and details, and of course is a craptacular 24fps.
Fertilizer + diesel fuel. It's what an American would have done when this place was the land of the free.
(today, he'd get busted by multiple federal agencies, such as parks and wildlife and the EPA for damaging the mountain. Plus the ATF for detonating an unlicensed explosive, of course)
Think about the problem for a moment. The basic action of healthcare is to bring up the records for only one patient, read the records to learn what you need to learn, and then to perform an intervention to slow the rate that the patient is dying at. After you perform the intervention, you should report your findings by adding more information to the patient's record.
So, this already radically makes the problem easier. It doesn't have to contain all human knowledge : your database should be able to put on the screen of the termnal the records for JUST THAT PATIENT within 1 second. So no expensive, slow searches of all the records.
In addition, it doesn't even need to bring up large files like the MRI right away. The way the software should work, once a user requests the records of a patient, the software should immediatly put up a summary screen with the information organized by priority. For MRIs and videos and such, only a preview of the full image need be displayed unless the user actually clicks it.
If I were designing the software, I would have it start downloading the full patient record in the background, with a low priority quality of service designation on the packets, to cache in the client machine. That way if a user left a patient record open for a while (say on a computer that's at a nurse's station) then browsing around the record would become instantaneous.
For the server side : I'd use idle cycles on the server hardware to optimize the layout on the hard disks and to pre-calculate things like preview images.
Anyways, I'm not a software developer, but I think it's obvious that if extremely high performance from the perspective of a user were a design goal, it would be possible to deliver.
Slashdot Mirror
According to wiki, 1.3a is fine. That's also what the article says. Evidently, anything above version 1.3 supports 1920x1080 at 120 hertz. But yeah, when you're talking about video streams with that much bandwidth, any bottleneck anywhere in an early PS3 and it's not going to work at all.
RTFA. First of all, there have been several models of TV that can actually display 120 hz and do 3d. Most of them use DLP for their light engine, but I think the very latest model LCDs can also do it. (that is, they've gotten the LCD crystals fast enough that there isn't too much ghosting between frames to do 3d)
Second, if you RTFA, you'll see it mention that the ps3 has plenty of power to display a 3d blueray movie. PS3 has ALWAYS been the best blue ray player, from the very beginning.
And finally : there are a fair number of major movies that had theater releases in 3d. Obviously Avatar is the next one up. This standard will enable home viewers to watch these films again. It will be somewhat expensive : even if you have a ps3, most folks would need a new TV, and the glasses will probably retail for $30-$50 or so a pair once it's mass market.
3d gaming is the killer app for stereoscopic displays though. It's been possible for many years, and it's a fantastic improvement in computer graphics. The next generation of consoles may just have enough graphics horsepower to make it a mainstream activity.
Is a "Space Ship 3" that reaches orbit possible with similar technology to the current line of spacecraft? Or would you have to go to a more conventional rocket design?
How's that? Color pictures are useful in many forms of textbook. In some, like medical textbooks, they are essential. (you need to have a photograph of an example of what the text is discussing. )
"current global environment provides the resources necessary for survival"
And how do you think that came to be? There's one word : machinery.
The reason we can communicate with each other NOW, and you aren't stuck in the kitchen raising babies in my village, is because of technology.
Go look at the backgrounds of the individuals who worked in Edison's lab and tell me you can develop technology without intelligence.
The one point I agree with you on is that high intelligence doesn't seem to be a factor that increases reproductive success very much.
Very few people who are seronegative are willing to sleep with a known HIV positive partner. However, in most real interactions, the encounter isn't exactly scripted and almost no one gets STD testing done before jumping into bed.
So for this kind of activity, which is one of the most enjoyable acts on earth for men (finding a young attractive partner and having bareback sex with her), one is safer if they are circumcised.
Indeed, that's my reaction. While an infant doesn't have the ability to store the memories of the pain or loss in a way that can be recalled later.
As for HIV...have you tried sex with a condom? It doesn't feel that good. Bareback is immensely better.
This is true of all police matters. What makes the Amanda Knox case such a media circus is that it's so rare for it to work out like this. Had a man cut a woman's throat and taken her wallet, that man would have gotten an automatic life sentence and the media would have never even reported on it.
It may be mutilation...but it provides strong protection against HIV, a rather deadly disease.
"Political correctness" is real.
It's a systematic trend on the part of society to discriminate against and devalue men on every official level.
Men can't say what they think any more, even if it's true. Such talk is considered "unprofessional, sexist, etc".
Men can't act upon their most fundamental, strongest desires to pursue women because it's 'sexual harassment'. Basically anything and everything a man might do to gauge interest is sexual harassment today.
Courts consistently discriminate against men. Civil courts nearly always favor the woman in divorce and child custody disputes. Criminal courts nearly always penalize men far more harshly than women for the same crime.
And when exceptional, talented men earn more money today because they worked for it, women file equal pay lawsuits and attempt to artificially rectify the situation. Or they complain about the glass ceiling. Never mind the fact that women consistently work fewer hours and take more time off for child care, which is their right but also significantly lowers their productivity.
The reason there's 6 billion people on the planet instead of a few hundred million is because of technology. Intelligence developed technology - therefore it has an enormous survival advantage on the macroscale.
The reason we can talk so much to each other is because of technology.
"Maleness" is a brain that develops and is modified by testosterone, resulting in increased risk taking behavior and improved mapping functions and possible a whole host of subtler changes.
Due to technology, physical strength matters an enormous amount less. Hence women are now being valued more, because nearly all jobs don't need as much physical strength.
"Equal protection", statistics, discrimination suits - none of this would be possible without technology.
Living as primitives in squalor, or in a high tech civilization? (rhetorical question)
Anyways, the leadership of a society isn't necessarily the core driving force behind it.
One possibility is that men really are smarter, just that IQ tests don't measure the most important aspects of intelligence.
Homo Sapiens are high end apes that have evolved some crucial abilities. The most important ability of all is the ability to use tools.
Even more important than that is the ability to INVENT NEW TOOLS. Our entire civilization exists because of bright men in the past who invented and engineered the technology we have today. Ironically, civilized trappings such as feminism and political correctness are only possible at all due to technology.
Anyways, as far as I know, men have done around 95-99% of the inventing. Correct me if I'm wrong. Furthermore, in many situations in real life, it's usually a male co-worker that invents a new solution to a technical problem. IQ tests can only measure the ability of a person's brain to apply existing, canned solutions to problems.
It has a tiny screen though. A tablet would be one huge screen and as thin and light as possible. Think giant iphone.
Yes, but the idea of a tablet is that it should be much lighter and smaller than a full computer. You'd be able to cart it around like a clipboard and use it in all sorts of industries. Ideally, the tablet would be about the size and weight of the screen on your laptop. It would be running a very low power usage CPU, and would have a power efficient display. Due to the slow CPU, it wouldn't be useful for a lot of things you can do with a laptop, but would be designed for working with lots of 2d documents.
Note : the e-paper screen on this device is 9.7" diagonal, which is the same size as the display on the kindle DX. Most likely it's the same part number.
This device is approaching the functionality of a truly useful electronic book. That's enough screen area to make an electronic textbook practical and close to being equivalent to the paper version. The true value of course is that you should be able to fit dozens or hundreds of books onto the machine. Plus : searchability, updates, electronic highlighting, etc.
Downside : publishers will try to destroy the used book market. They'll use DRM and various access controls to try to force every user to buy a separate copy.
Upside : open textbooks directly published by professors, available free or for under $15, will be more practical.
Obviously, the problem this device has is that at $490 it's far too expensive ($200-$300 would probably be a more practical price point). Android is still basically a beta product, and we don't know if the guts of this device are up to snuff. It needs to have a long battery life, a CPU that is beefy enough to not add long delays yet use very little power, and things like an SD card reader.
Oh contrare, the fact that you are attempting to use such a poor movie as an official canonical source of geekdom means that you are the one who should report to the nearest security checkpoint and surrender your geek identification. Oh, and bring a toothbrush - you're going to need it.
Eh? Your comment doesn't make any sense. Do you speak English as a second (or third) language?
CFLs have won on price for years now. I bought 30 nvision CFLs to replace most of the bulbs in my house just a few months ago. Total cost was about 55 dollars. Nvision scored better than every other bulb, including incandescents, in testing by popular mechanics two years ago. The testing metric was a series of sample images, text, color swatches, and so forth that a group of judges used to more or less objectively compare the quality of light from each bulb tested. They could not see what kind of bulb was being used, technically making it a blind test.
Every home depot has nvisions or their rebranding 'ecosmart'. I bought them online from home depot's web site.
Short answer about heat : even if you lived in Antarctica, you'll still save much more money than CFLs cost by using them assuming your heat doesn't come from electrical resistance heating.
There are hacked cartridges that evade this chicanery. http://cgi.ebay.com/Continuous-Ink-System-For-Epson-R260-R380-RX580-Printer_W0QQitemZ370299562964QQcmdZViewItemQQptZBI_Toner?hash=item563792ebd4
Our good friends the Chinese have devised all sorts of bypasses.
Pony up $56 for plenty of ink.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Continuous-Ink-System-For-Epson-R260-R380-RX580-Printer_W0QQitemZ370299562964QQcmdZViewItemQQptZBI_Toner?hash=item563792ebd4
I'll take the printer off your hands if you don't want it. I'll give you $10 plus shipping.
Are you blind? It's one thing to compare DirectX 9 versus 11 video games, where either API lets you create highly detailed, high performance graphics.
It's another to compare the gigantic difference in picture quality between 1080p/720p and craptacular 480p (at most)
The difference between high def and standard is pretty darn immediate and obvious for new content such as TV shows that were made using the right digital cameras. Film, not so much, because the darn camera and lenses in movies is often set to blur hard edges and details, and of course is a craptacular 24fps.
Fertilizer + diesel fuel. It's what an American would have done when this place was the land of the free.
(today, he'd get busted by multiple federal agencies, such as parks and wildlife and the EPA for damaging the mountain. Plus the ATF for detonating an unlicensed explosive, of course)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090129090218.htm
Some people wave their hands pretty vigorously...
Think about the problem for a moment. The basic action of healthcare is to bring up the records for only one patient, read the records to learn what you need to learn, and then to perform an intervention to slow the rate that the patient is dying at. After you perform the intervention, you should report your findings by adding more information to the patient's record.
So, this already radically makes the problem easier. It doesn't have to contain all human knowledge : your database should be able to put on the screen of the termnal the records for JUST THAT PATIENT within 1 second. So no expensive, slow searches of all the records.
In addition, it doesn't even need to bring up large files like the MRI right away. The way the software should work, once a user requests the records of a patient, the software should immediatly put up a summary screen with the information organized by priority. For MRIs and videos and such, only a preview of the full image need be displayed unless the user actually clicks it.
If I were designing the software, I would have it start downloading the full patient record in the background, with a low priority quality of service designation on the packets, to cache in the client machine. That way if a user left a patient record open for a while (say on a computer that's at a nurse's station) then browsing around the record would become instantaneous.
For the server side : I'd use idle cycles on the server hardware to optimize the layout on the hard disks and to pre-calculate things like preview images.
Anyways, I'm not a software developer, but I think it's obvious that if extremely high performance from the perspective of a user were a design goal, it would be possible to deliver.