I highly recommend a leather pouch for keys (mine has a ring for keys attached to it). I'm not sure if it'd fit a million keys, but it should be fine for ~8 of them. It's very convenient: neither the pants nor the hands get cut/rubbed on by the keys.
I use the tablet to take down mathematical lectures on it. It's very nice for lectures which use tons of math symbols and diagrams, especially because it doesn't clutter up my desk as much. I find it nicer to have tons of files that I almost never look at, than when I had tons of papers I almost never look at, then lost and couldn't find when I did need one.
However, I can't invent any other use for a tablet PC. If math lectures didn't have diagrams, I'd use Word or LaTeX. Typing is faster than writing on a tablet. Maybe art students have a use for it? Anybody know other uses?
Sure, the shuttle went to fix the Hubble, and it was great. But remember for how long before then NASA was waffling on whether to allow this mission, or cancel it because it's too dangerous to go someplace where you can't bail out to the space station? Even though this kind of missions are exactly what the Shuttle was designed to do?
I think it's pretty clear that even if the Shuttle stayed in service, it would only be going to the ISS from now on. Which would be as much a shame as them canceling it, if not more (tons of money would be spent on something pretty useless, and cheaper to do with expendable rockets).
I'd worry more about their Chinese employees. Although, with them having nowhere to go, there seems to be little to hope for.
Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie
on
Hot Or Not — 3D TV
·
· Score: 1
I had the same problem. However, I found it not too hard to teach myself to focus your sight where the director wants you to focus (i.e. on the sharpest objects). I felt a bit like a trained monkey doing this, but it quickly became automatic.
I think it's an interesting dilemma for the director. It is possible to make everything sharp (by making the aperture small, and the focal depth huge. Since most of the movie is computer-generated anyway, it'd be even easier). However, this will not look realistic in dimly-lit rooms, as there your eyes cannot naturally see everything sharply. Also, the 2D version of the movie will then look terrible, as in 2D the lack of sharpness is the main tool they can use to indicate distance to object.
Still, I'd be interested in seeing what a perfectly sharp 3D movie would look like. After all, with CG, they can make two versions: sharp 3D and normal 2D.
Just to throw this out there: there are already some known reasonably Earth-like planets out there. Here's the best one. Of course, so far there aren't that many...
I just want to point out that the movie has more merits than just the visuals. The design of everything is pitch perfect: every little detail of every little machine of the humans (or the giant spaceship they came in), every little creature of the alien jungle, even details of the culture of the natives are very well thought out, even the physics works better than in almost any other sci-fy movie I've seen. The whole enviroment of the alien world feels entirely believable, you truly feel immersed in it.
On the other hand, you are right that the plot is terrible. The charaters are bad, they don't even act like live people, and you can predict what will happen 20 minutes into the movie. However, this does not change the fact that the movie is amazing - just think of it as a safari into an alien jungle.
This does, however, surprise me. Everything else in the movie is darn near perfect, why couldn't they put a tiny bit of effort into the scriptwriting? The same setting could house an amazing plot. If the authors thought that the plot is not the point, as I think they did, why couldn't they at least have a sense of humor about this? After all, they do poke fun at the one piece of physics that doesn't work, the "unobtanium"...
In my opinion, if you didn't get addicted to them, you probably don't need them. My only suggestion is that whenever "the alternative" repeatedly feels uncomfortable for some task, give the tried and tested tools a try. You'll either get addicted in no time, or go back without wasting much time and having learned something.
Here's a video of a different walking robot, BigDog. It seems alive - it can be kicked, walks on ice (where it stumbles just like an animal), jumps, etc.
I think that to use the equation editor in Word 2007, you have to go to Insert->Object (or whatever place it allows you to insert things such as Excel tables, etc.), and pick Equation Editor there.
By default, if you try to insert some math, you'll be using the new Office Math Editor, which did not exist in previous versions of Office, and probably doesn't nag for ads. The Equation Editor is the "legacy" way of inserting formulas.
I have no idea whether it's true. I haven't read the guy's blog before, and assumed that the part that is written in the guy's own voice (rather than Steve Jobs's) is NOT a joke.
But if it is a joke, then the guy is a jerk - or I utterly lack a sense of humor.
Assuming that this is true, this doesn't shed too good a light on the EFF. Isn't the EFF supposed to help bloggers that are being attacked by large corporations, regardless of what is posted on the blog and, in particular, of whether the person likes the EFF? At least, isn't that what people who donate to the EFF expect it to do?
It may matter little who you vote for, but it matters a lot that you vote. In a coutry with 2% of the people voting, the politicians are basically given free rein: they can do whatever they want; nobody cares, and whatever they do, it will not affect the politicians' lives again. If 99% of the people vote, the situation is quite different.
So, if you vote for a candidate that loses, or doesn't do anything well, that's OK. As long as the percentage of voters goes up, it's all for the best.
(Of course, there are exceptions. For instance, if 99% of the people vote, and they all vote for the same person, that leads to very different problems. Then, it's the number of people that vote for the opposition that matters).
Wow, states' rights are back. I imagine Civil War II is ahead...
But really, I think that the federal government will just tie the Real ID to some form of funding, and all states will happily agree to that, much like in the case of the drinking age.
I wonder - does this version still require dealing with the WGA droid?
The lack of desire to keep proving that my Windows is genuine is one of the main reasons so far I'm not upgrading IE. The other is the fear that it's another huge slow monster - I don't want to imagine how much disk space it takes...
I guess I should explain my point more clearly. Sure, string theory did appear as an attempt to unite quantum physics and general relativity. It appeared because people have noticed that under several assumptions (vibrating strings, 12 dimensions, etc.), they could make the equations for relativity and the equations for quantum mechanics match.
Unfortunately, this discovery currently has little physical value and it does not seem that it will have any in the foreseeable future. The effects of these assumptions are not measurable; they do not have an existance outside of the heads of the people creating it. To a physiscist - a person who tries to explain the real world as he can measure it - they are useless. See the rest of the comments in this thread.
To a mathematician, however, any further understanding of abstract objects such as strings is interesting, especially if it is beautiful. I have no idea whether or how these ideas will ever find an application, but I think they probably will, this will probably happen unexpectedly, and if they don't, it doesn't matter.
In conclusion: people who are doing string theory because it's useful should stop because it isn't. People who are doing string theory because it's pretty should call themselves mathematicians because they are. I am (trying to be?) one, and I know math when I see it.
I think the whole problem is that string theory is misclassified. As far as I understand, the whole reason for its existance is that people have noticed several beautyful equations for strings in 12-dimensional space. On the other hand, we are as far now from seeing a measurable connection between these equations and the world around us as we were 20 years ago.
This is not physics because physics ultimately deals with the real world around us, with things we can measure or at least hope to measure. However, since this is a beautyful theory, this is math.
IMHO, any beautyful math will someday find its application and even if it doesn't, it should be done solely for its beauty. In any case, if string theorists would start calling themselves mathematicians, all the problems with string theory would disappear. Just don't expect it to have any obvious applications.
Yes, in the US you do pay to receive cell phone calls. On the other hand, calling a cell phone costs exactly as much as calling a landline. If it's a local call, it's 0.00 dollars/minute. From other places/countries, it's cheap.
All in all, it's a different pricing scheme that usually results in the same net charges for average use of the phones.
By the way, I don't know about USA as a country that "prides itself on its innovation and technical advancement"... Maybe it does, but it is definetely not Japan.
It is actually possible to deal with this situation legally. When I wiped the harddrive of my Thinkpad, I copied a Windows XP CD, and used the legal key from the bottom of the computer.
It turned out that it did not want to get "activated" over the net. Well, I called the "activate by phone" number, talked to them for a minute, and they activated it for me.
If you paid for this 20-charachter string when you bought the computer, might as well use it.
Slashdot Mirror
How does the screen compare on price?
The Beacon of Truth speaks on how large the number of addresses is:
http://xkcd.com/865/
I think you should imagine walking uphill, say up a mountain. Which takes less time:
walking up a winding trail or scaling the rock's face directly?
For an even more pronounced difference, try biking uphill.
I highly recommend a leather pouch for keys (mine has a ring for keys attached to it). I'm not sure if it'd fit a million keys, but it should be fine for ~8 of them. It's very convenient: neither the pants nor the hands get cut/rubbed on by the keys.
I use the tablet to take down mathematical lectures on it. It's very nice for lectures which use tons of math symbols and diagrams, especially because it doesn't clutter up my desk as much. I find it nicer to have tons of files that I almost never look at, than when I had tons of papers I almost never look at, then lost and couldn't find when I did need one.
However, I can't invent any other use for a tablet PC. If math lectures didn't have diagrams, I'd use Word or LaTeX. Typing is faster than writing on a tablet. Maybe art students have a use for it? Anybody know other uses?
I'm almost sure you'll enjoy C-Evo.
Sure, the shuttle went to fix the Hubble, and it was great. But remember for how long before then NASA was waffling on whether to allow this mission, or cancel it because it's too dangerous to go someplace where you can't bail out to the space station? Even though this kind of missions are exactly what the Shuttle was designed to do?
I think it's pretty clear that even if the Shuttle stayed in service, it would only be going to the ISS from now on. Which would be as much a shame as them canceling it, if not more (tons of money would be spent on something pretty useless, and cheaper to do with expendable rockets).
I'd worry more about their Chinese employees. Although, with them having nowhere to go,
there seems to be little to hope for.
I had the same problem. However, I found it not too hard to teach myself to focus your sight where the director wants you to focus (i.e. on the sharpest objects). I felt a bit like a trained monkey doing this, but it quickly became automatic.
I think it's an interesting dilemma for the director. It is possible to make everything sharp (by making the aperture small, and the focal depth huge. Since most of the movie is computer-generated anyway, it'd be even easier). However, this will not look realistic in dimly-lit rooms, as there your eyes cannot naturally see everything sharply. Also, the 2D version of the movie will then look terrible, as in 2D the lack of sharpness is the main tool they can use to indicate distance to object.
Still, I'd be interested in seeing what a perfectly sharp 3D movie would look like. After all, with CG, they can make two versions: sharp 3D and normal 2D.
Just to throw this out there: there are already some known reasonably Earth-like planets out there. Here's the best one. Of course, so far there aren't that many...
I just want to point out that the movie has more merits than just the visuals. The design of everything is pitch perfect: every little detail of every little machine of the humans (or the giant spaceship they came in), every little creature of the alien jungle, even details of the culture of the natives are very well thought out, even the physics works better than in almost any other sci-fy movie I've seen. The whole enviroment of the alien world feels entirely believable, you truly feel immersed in it.
On the other hand, you are right that the plot is terrible. The charaters are bad, they don't even act like live people, and you can
predict what will happen 20 minutes into the movie. However, this does not change the fact that the movie is amazing - just think of it as a safari into an alien jungle.
This does, however, surprise me. Everything else in the movie is darn near perfect, why couldn't they put a tiny bit of effort into the scriptwriting? The same setting could house an amazing plot. If the authors thought that the plot is not the point, as I think they did, why couldn't they at least have a sense of humor about this? After all, they do poke fun at the one piece of physics that doesn't work, the "unobtanium"...
Try zooming in - you see a swamp. So, if something is hidden there,
it must have been very temporary...
Well, I think they agree with you about the routes. Look at the map
at the bottom of this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/A-Vision-for-High-Speed-Rail/
In my opinion, if you didn't get addicted to them, you probably don't need them.
My only suggestion is that whenever "the alternative" repeatedly feels uncomfortable for some task, give the tried and tested tools a try. You'll either get addicted in no time, or go back without wasting much time and having learned something.
Here's a video of a different walking robot, BigDog. It seems alive - it can be kicked, walks on ice (where it stumbles
just like an animal), jumps, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww
It's scary to imagine the thing with a turret on its head, though.
I think that to use the equation editor in Word 2007, you have to go to Insert->Object (or whatever place it allows you to insert things such as Excel tables, etc.), and pick Equation Editor there.
By default, if you try to insert some math, you'll be using the new Office Math Editor, which did not exist in previous versions of Office, and probably doesn't nag for ads. The Equation Editor is the "legacy" way of inserting formulas.
I have no idea whether it's true. I haven't read the guy's blog before, and assumed that the part that is written in the guy's own voice (rather than Steve Jobs's) is NOT a joke.
But if it is a joke, then the guy is a jerk - or I utterly lack a sense of humor.
Apparently, the guy tried to contact EFF and was turned down (see bottom of the link) because the EFF didn't like some of his posts.
Assuming that this is true, this doesn't shed too good a light on the EFF. Isn't the EFF supposed to help bloggers that are being attacked by large corporations, regardless of what is posted on the blog and, in particular, of whether the person likes the EFF? At least, isn't that what people who donate to the EFF expect it to do?
It may matter little who you vote for, but it matters a lot that you vote. In a coutry with 2% of the people voting, the politicians are basically given free rein: they can do whatever they want; nobody cares, and whatever they do, it will not affect the politicians' lives again. If 99% of the people vote, the situation is quite different.
So, if you vote for a candidate that loses, or doesn't do anything well, that's OK. As long as the percentage of voters goes up, it's all for the best.
(Of course, there are exceptions. For instance, if 99% of the people vote, and they all vote for the same person, that leads to very different problems. Then, it's the number of people that vote for the opposition that matters).
Wow, states' rights are back. I imagine Civil War II is ahead...
But really, I think that the federal government will just tie the Real ID to some form of funding, and all states will happily agree to that, much like in the case of the drinking age.
I wonder - does this version still require dealing with the WGA droid?
The lack of desire to keep proving that my Windows is genuine is one of the main reasons so far I'm not upgrading IE. The other is the fear that it's another huge slow monster - I don't want to imagine how much disk space it takes...
I guess I should explain my point more clearly. Sure, string theory did appear as an attempt to unite quantum physics and general relativity. It appeared because people have noticed that under several assumptions (vibrating strings, 12 dimensions, etc.), they could make the equations for relativity and the equations for quantum mechanics match.
Unfortunately, this discovery currently has little physical value and it does not seem that it will have any in the foreseeable future. The effects of these assumptions are not measurable; they do not have an existance outside of the heads of the people creating it. To a physiscist - a person who tries to explain the real world as he can measure it - they are useless. See the rest of the comments in this thread.
To a mathematician, however, any further understanding of abstract objects such as strings is interesting, especially if it is beautiful. I have no idea whether or how these ideas will ever find an application, but I think they probably will, this will probably happen unexpectedly, and if they don't, it doesn't matter.
In conclusion: people who are doing string theory because it's useful should stop because it isn't. People who are doing string theory because it's pretty should call themselves mathematicians because they are. I am (trying to be?) one, and I know math when I see it.
Anyway, it's late so I'm rambling.
I think the whole problem is that string theory is misclassified. As far as I understand, the whole reason for its existance is that people have noticed several beautyful equations for strings in 12-dimensional space. On the other hand, we are as far now from seeing a measurable connection between these equations and the world around us as we were 20 years ago.
This is not physics because physics ultimately deals with the real world around us, with things we can measure or at least hope to measure. However, since this is a beautyful theory, this is math.
IMHO, any beautyful math will someday find its application and even if it doesn't, it should be done solely for its beauty. In any case, if string theorists would start calling themselves mathematicians, all the problems with string theory would disappear. Just don't expect it to have any obvious applications.
Yes, in the US you do pay to receive cell phone calls. On the other hand, calling a cell phone costs exactly as much as calling a landline. If it's a local call, it's 0.00 dollars /minute. From other places/countries, it's cheap.
All in all, it's a different pricing scheme that usually results in the same net charges for average use of the phones.
By the way, I don't know about USA as a country that "prides itself on its innovation and technical advancement"... Maybe it does, but it is definetely not Japan.
It is actually possible to deal with this situation legally. When I wiped the harddrive of my Thinkpad, I copied a Windows XP CD, and used the legal key from the bottom of the computer.
It turned out that it did not want to get "activated" over the net. Well, I called the "activate by phone" number, talked to them for a minute, and they activated it for me.
If you paid for this 20-charachter string when you bought the computer, might as well use it.