This is only because your monitor has a very limited dynamic range. High dynamic range displays have a much higher contrast ratio with a far higher brightness. 24 bit color results in horrendous banding artifacts on an HDR display, and even is noticeable on some of the newest high contrast HDTVs.
Generally speaking, you're subtracting large and nearly equal numbers from each other, which is always tricky.
Exactly. Since you're dealing with finite precision, you can easily get catastrophic cancellation of significant digits. There's a great discussion in the "Modern Mathematical Methods for Physicists and Engineers" text.
This doesn't work like the usual autostereoscopic 3D monitors. A few seconds in Google lead me to their site: http://holografika.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=63
Note the described operation, and also the interesting claim that "There's no contradiction between eye-convergence and focusing"--this is not the case with 3D shutterglasses or normal autostereoscopic monitors.
3D displays have been on sale for years already. I have no idea what in the hell you mean "any day now". How do they not "amount to anything"? I've used autostereoscopic 3D displays from different companies at SIGGRAPH years ago, versions of commercial products, and they work just fine. Your rant is very ill-informed.
I always wonder why optical disks don't use floppy-style cartridges. Then you wouldn't need jewel boxes AND your medium is protected. If I remember correctly, minidisks used such a system.
By using hidden volumes in Truecrypt for plausible deniability, you nincompoop--there's no way to prove that the volume holds encrypted data--it just looks like random garbage.
Great job citing proper sources *rolleyes*. The quote is from Oscar Wilde and is "The cynic is a man knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." A fucking Google search would have told you that with the first result!
You're assuming that the aliens in question have life processes running on the same timescales as us. This is an unwarranted assumption and shows a lack of imagination, at the very least.
They don't have to evolve on geologically active planets. Silicon-based life forms living on the surface of hard inner cores of gas giants have been considered by scientists, for example. Other more extreme non-carbon based life forms have been seriously considered and not discounted. You're being overly anthropocentric.
In the end it's the wrong solution. Feeding directly into the eyes not only avoids these problems, but it's also the most efficient way to do it.
It's pretty much the same situation with audio. For spatial accuracy, on the one hand you have Ambisonics with its spherical harmonics encoding, and the more speakers you use the better the spatial resolution gets, and unfortunately the smaller the sweet spot gets--plus you're chaining a bunch of speakers around a sphere. The flat screen analogy to audio then becomes a two speaker setup with software doing crosstalk cancellation to ameliorate the problem of left speaker->right ear (and converse). And the simplest and most efficient solution, of course, in-ear canal headphones playing binaural track, and sound source is recording with a dummy head or virtual world sound filtered through the HRTF of the listener (which can be calculated from a laser scan of the head, no expensive measurement in an anechoic chamber needed any longer).
Then why do only flat IMAX screens support stereo 3D? IMAX Dome theatres can't display it. IMAX now uses digital projectors, so if it were as simple as you imply, they'd have implemented it.
The fact is the problem is one of geometry, not technical issues of polarization. The parallax will only be correct for a very small sweet spot. The user of such a device would have to hold their head motionless, save for turning it.
It's impossible to get a 3D stereo setup with a non-planar display like this. One is better off spending their money on an autostereoscopic LCD monitor instead, which is more immersive.
How large would be the theoretically smallest fission reactor that could be created? (not bomb but controlled fission) I know it's a bit offtopic but I didn't know where else to ask
The only thing he needs to figure out is the true agenda of you and the other enviro-nuts: you will never concede an argument because you people are driven by fanatical misanthropy.
This is simply nonsense. I've used both Mystery and DeAngelo type indirect methods, and though there was success, I realized I was wasting my time when being very direct works better. Now my opener is most of the time something along the lines of "hey, you're cute". Of course, if you take a random geek and put him in the street and he says that to a woman, well it won't get him anywhere. It's all in the delivery and who's behind it. Working on your social behavior alone is not sufficient--it's just the surface and most women will figure it out. Mystery's routines will go the way of the pickup lines of old. DeAngelo's cocky&funny is just as lame unless it's who you really are. It's the thing someone risk averse and afraid to throw themselves in a situation does--however you spin it, it comes down to trying to chip away at the defenses of the woman with the C&F--the hidden assumption being that she is your opponent. Mystery and DeAngelo have gotten me a lot of one night stands and some FBs, but direct works just as well and is much faster to lead to whatever the eventual result would've been anyway (sex or rejection). And, the first two almost never lead to a relationship with any sort of deep connection.
The redeeming factor for DeAngelo's stuff is that in his more advanced material (specifically, his Mastery program, you can probably find torrents of the DVDs) he moves beyond the behavioral tricks of Double Your Dating and goes into inner game, which what it's really all about.
For the noobs, I recommend you skip the keyboard jockey's of mASF, Mystery's tired routines, and some of DeAngelo's stuff (Double Your Dating). The most important thing is to find people in your area that you can learn from, and you should be biased towards guys that are naturally good with women rather than self-styled PUAs. If you insist on gurus and material, look at Swinggcat's ebook on torrents/shareaza, Zan Perrion's stuff, or if you're in Vancouver BC check out Ronald Lee. Some of Tyler Durden's recent stuff is good as well.
Slashdot Mirror
This is only because your monitor has a very limited dynamic range. High dynamic range displays have a much higher contrast ratio with a far higher brightness. 24 bit color results in horrendous banding artifacts on an HDR display, and even is noticeable on some of the newest high contrast HDTVs.
Generally speaking, you're subtracting large and nearly equal numbers from each other, which is always tricky.
Exactly. Since you're dealing with finite precision, you can easily get catastrophic cancellation of significant digits. There's a great discussion in the "Modern Mathematical Methods for Physicists and Engineers" text.
This doesn't work like the usual autostereoscopic 3D monitors. A few seconds in Google lead me to their site: http://holografika.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=63 Note the described operation, and also the interesting claim that "There's no contradiction between eye-convergence and focusing"--this is not the case with 3D shutterglasses or normal autostereoscopic monitors.
3D displays have been on sale for years already. I have no idea what in the hell you mean "any day now". How do they not "amount to anything"? I've used autostereoscopic 3D displays from different companies at SIGGRAPH years ago, versions of commercial products, and they work just fine. Your rant is very ill-informed.
It's not headtracking. One look at their website would have made that obvious: http://holografika.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=63
It is very different from the standard autostereoscopic 3D monitors. One look at their website would have made that obvious: http://holografika.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=63
I always wonder why optical disks don't use floppy-style cartridges. Then you wouldn't need jewel boxes AND your medium is protected. If I remember correctly, minidisks used such a system.
By using hidden volumes in Truecrypt for plausible deniability, you nincompoop--there's no way to prove that the volume holds encrypted data--it just looks like random garbage.
Great job citing proper sources *rolleyes*. The quote is from Oscar Wilde and is "The cynic is a man knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." A fucking Google search would have told you that with the first result!
that fucktard Harper
Good argument, there *rollseyes*
That link image is not a search result, as the patent specifies, so your post is off-topic.
Diamond? Looks square to me, rather than rhomboid.
I don't get it :?
Just because you discount some ways of doing it doesn't mean there can't be others that don't require huge amounts of mass. http://www.google.com/patents?id=oFAvAAAAEBAJ&dq=4205268
You're assuming that the aliens in question have life processes running on the same timescales as us. This is an unwarranted assumption and shows a lack of imagination, at the very least.
They don't have to evolve on geologically active planets. Silicon-based life forms living on the surface of hard inner cores of gas giants have been considered by scientists, for example. Other more extreme non-carbon based life forms have been seriously considered and not discounted. You're being overly anthropocentric.
You cretin, you should have read the whole post you were replying to:
Provides two levels of plausible deniability, in case an adversary forces you to reveal the password:
1) Hidden volume (steganography â" more information may be found here).
2) No TrueCrypt volume can be identified (volumes cannot be distinguished from random dat
Shame on you and the imbeciles that modded you up!
In the end it's the wrong solution. Feeding directly into the eyes not only avoids these problems, but it's also the most efficient way to do it. It's pretty much the same situation with audio. For spatial accuracy, on the one hand you have Ambisonics with its spherical harmonics encoding, and the more speakers you use the better the spatial resolution gets, and unfortunately the smaller the sweet spot gets--plus you're chaining a bunch of speakers around a sphere. The flat screen analogy to audio then becomes a two speaker setup with software doing crosstalk cancellation to ameliorate the problem of left speaker->right ear (and converse). And the simplest and most efficient solution, of course, in-ear canal headphones playing binaural track, and sound source is recording with a dummy head or virtual world sound filtered through the HRTF of the listener (which can be calculated from a laser scan of the head, no expensive measurement in an anechoic chamber needed any longer).
Then why do only flat IMAX screens support stereo 3D? IMAX Dome theatres can't display it. IMAX now uses digital projectors, so if it were as simple as you imply, they'd have implemented it.
The fact is the problem is one of geometry, not technical issues of polarization. The parallax will only be correct for a very small sweet spot. The user of such a device would have to hold their head motionless, save for turning it.
It's impossible to get a 3D stereo setup with a non-planar display like this. One is better off spending their money on an autostereoscopic LCD monitor instead, which is more immersive.
How large would be the theoretically smallest fission reactor that could be created? (not bomb but controlled fission) I know it's a bit offtopic but I didn't know where else to ask
Your post's third paragraph is completely discredited by this: http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/5/battered_yahoo_caves_admits_it_overplayed_hand_now_open_to_new_microsoft_talks
The only thing he needs to figure out is the true agenda of you and the other enviro-nuts: you will never concede an argument because you people are driven by fanatical misanthropy.
This is simply nonsense. I've used both Mystery and DeAngelo type indirect methods, and though there was success, I realized I was wasting my time when being very direct works better. Now my opener is most of the time something along the lines of "hey, you're cute". Of course, if you take a random geek and put him in the street and he says that to a woman, well it won't get him anywhere. It's all in the delivery and who's behind it. Working on your social behavior alone is not sufficient--it's just the surface and most women will figure it out. Mystery's routines will go the way of the pickup lines of old. DeAngelo's cocky&funny is just as lame unless it's who you really are. It's the thing someone risk averse and afraid to throw themselves in a situation does--however you spin it, it comes down to trying to chip away at the defenses of the woman with the C&F--the hidden assumption being that she is your opponent. Mystery and DeAngelo have gotten me a lot of one night stands and some FBs, but direct works just as well and is much faster to lead to whatever the eventual result would've been anyway (sex or rejection). And, the first two almost never lead to a relationship with any sort of deep connection.
The redeeming factor for DeAngelo's stuff is that in his more advanced material (specifically, his Mastery program, you can probably find torrents of the DVDs) he moves beyond the behavioral tricks of Double Your Dating and goes into inner game, which what it's really all about.
For the noobs, I recommend you skip the keyboard jockey's of mASF, Mystery's tired routines, and some of DeAngelo's stuff (Double Your Dating). The most important thing is to find people in your area that you can learn from, and you should be biased towards guys that are naturally good with women rather than self-styled PUAs. If you insist on gurus and material, look at Swinggcat's ebook on torrents/shareaza, Zan Perrion's stuff, or if you're in Vancouver BC check out Ronald Lee. Some of Tyler Durden's recent stuff is good as well.
That's a great post. I'm going to save this in my bookmarks about setting up interview questions