You'd probably also have to deal with all the people claiming the wi-fi is giving them cancer and autism. Actually, I used to live in a kibbutz which is a sort of semirural small town sort of thing, around 900 people in that specific one and they dealt with the ISP collectively, only got off dialup around 2003 though.
I'm not really sure what you're suggesting to take that grain of salt with, as long as this has the same specs as the final product what difference does it make if the leak was intentional or not?
I haven't noticed it and now it's been slashdotted so I can't confirm but I imagine that if they used two different exposures on the cameras then on the longer exposure a fast moving object would be blurred so at its core it would be darker because it's always blocking the light while at the edges it would be lighter since it's only blocking the light part of the time. So I guess it would create edge artifacts because of the mismatch between the short exposure which has less motion blur and is mostly at the same level of brightness and the long exposure which has the edge blurring. And I would think that you could solve that with a neutral density filter rather than using different exposure lengths. I'm this is all one big assumption though.
I'm no expert on the subject but the basics as I understand them are you take several photos at different exposures, that way you have all the details in the dark areas from the overexposed photo, the details in the bright areas from the underexposed photo (that would otherwise be burnt out) and you can even use an HDR image for lighting a 3D scene by I guess analyzing the nonlinear way lighting changes between exposures (this area I'm a bit less clear about)
It's difficult to do for video since for a still image you just take different photos without moving the camera, so you need to share the same point of view but it can be at different times given a static scene, with video you need to share both the point of view and the time so it requires, as they did here, splitting the same image into two and having two cameras record at two different exposures.
What I'm not sure about is why you can't just use a single exposure and make copies of the current states along its duration, probably has something to do with sensor response times and or the method used to read from it being destructive.
I really can't see the distinction and I don't see how the second part of that statement follows from the first. Because there's no known way for something to come from nothing... only an almighty random number generator could generate something from nothing. What makes this almighty creator any different from any other process that you can complete that sentence with?
Well then why can't something else be outside time and have the same results? Or would you also call that god? Or does being outside time somehow necessitate agency and if so why?
Well, I'm in the comfortable position of having a new laptop with build in GPS that works thanks to other people's understanding of these things and the unlikelihood of a vast conspiracy to conceal that all the apparent physics formulas involved are a decoy to hide the real mechanism. On the other hand I'm less comfortable with believing extraordinary claims with no proof and even discouragement of expecting proof.
Point is, faith that the sun is very likely to rise again tomorrow is not the same meaning of the word as faith that an omnipotent being has chosen to bend the laws of physics to appear on a piece of toast.
Well that's the whole point. "Who created the creator?" comes as a retort to religious people saying "Something can't come out of nothing" and then saying that it must have been created by a god since for some reason god is exempt from this rule but any other explanation wouldn't be.
I think "the ability to visualize what is in your mind" is an extreme generalization. It's the ability to visualize the letters that make up a word and while it may be a useful skill sometimes, like when people ask you to spell out your email address, personally I don't find it of much use other than that. I suppose it's either genetic or priorities that your brain developed as a child. I have a problem associating the words 'right' and 'left' with their respective directions and I need a second to translate. Also, I'm a graphic design student and I find that I and people I study with generally visualize ideas in a more detailed way than people outside the field, I wouldn't call it a deficiency, just a different more hard-coded skillset that not everyone should necessarily have.
I had this Brother printer/scanner combo and after a while it ran out of magenta ink, it wouldn't let me print at all even though I wanted to print a greyscale image and the black ink head was pretty much full. So no more printers for me. I'm studying graphic design so I have access to a bunch of printers at school right now but I don't think I'll be buying a printer after this.
Slashdot Mirror
I sometimes lay outside and try to think of the sky as 'out' rather than up.
You'd probably also have to deal with all the people claiming the wi-fi is giving them cancer and autism.
Actually, I used to live in a kibbutz which is a sort of semirural small town sort of thing, around 900 people in that specific one and they dealt with the ISP collectively, only got off dialup around 2003 though.
Not including the price of the infrastructure involved in splitting it, of course.
But I think for sheer apocalyptitude it doesn't beat the fire and lightning volcanic ash cloud
Intellectual Property infringes you?
No wait, that's the way it works everywhere else too.
I'm not really sure what you're suggesting to take that grain of salt with, as long as this has the same specs as the final product what difference does it make if the leak was intentional or not?
I haven't noticed it and now it's been slashdotted so I can't confirm but I imagine that if they used two different exposures on the cameras then on the longer exposure a fast moving object would be blurred so at its core it would be darker because it's always blocking the light while at the edges it would be lighter since it's only blocking the light part of the time.
So I guess it would create edge artifacts because of the mismatch between the short exposure which has less motion blur and is mostly at the same level of brightness and the long exposure which has the edge blurring.
And I would think that you could solve that with a neutral density filter rather than using different exposure lengths.
I'm this is all one big assumption though.
I'm no expert on the subject but the basics as I understand them are you take several photos at different exposures, that way you have all the details in the dark areas from the overexposed photo, the details in the bright areas from the underexposed photo (that would otherwise be burnt out) and you can even use an HDR image for lighting a 3D scene by I guess analyzing the nonlinear way lighting changes between exposures (this area I'm a bit less clear about)
It's difficult to do for video since for a still image you just take different photos without moving the camera, so you need to share the same point of view but it can be at different times given a static scene, with video you need to share both the point of view and the time so it requires, as they did here, splitting the same image into two and having two cameras record at two different exposures.
What I'm not sure about is why you can't just use a single exposure and make copies of the current states along its duration, probably has something to do with sensor response times and or the method used to read from it being destructive.
That's great and all but when do I get a camera that also shoots a depth map?
I see you have an English degree... [burns resume]
Fixed that for you.
Monty Python's Flying Circus?
Around here Comfy is pretty popular.
Alternatively you can always lock your child in a room with a computer until they learn to use the CLI.
Was how unprofessional the animation was and how I'd like to get some ice cream.
Hope the grocery store has Irish Mudslide.
Well they certainly skimped on the animation itself.
It looks like a third year animation student's project.
I believe you're referring to Chuck Norris.
I really can't see the distinction and I don't see how the second part of that statement follows from the first.
Because there's no known way for something to come from nothing... only an almighty random number generator could generate something from nothing.
What makes this almighty creator any different from any other process that you can complete that sentence with?
Well then why can't something else be outside time and have the same results?
Or would you also call that god?
Or does being outside time somehow necessitate agency and if so why?
Well, I'm in the comfortable position of having a new laptop with build in GPS that works thanks to other people's understanding of these things and the unlikelihood of a vast conspiracy to conceal that all the apparent physics formulas involved are a decoy to hide the real mechanism.
On the other hand I'm less comfortable with believing extraordinary claims with no proof and even discouragement of expecting proof.
Point is, faith that the sun is very likely to rise again tomorrow is not the same meaning of the word as faith that an omnipotent being has chosen to bend the laws of physics to appear on a piece of toast.
Well that's the whole point.
"Who created the creator?" comes as a retort to religious people saying "Something can't come out of nothing" and then saying that it must have been created by a god since for some reason god is exempt from this rule but any other explanation wouldn't be.
Isn't that the set from La Femme Nikita?
I still have the purple tentacle monster that came with my Voodoo 3500.
I do not at all miss 3Dfx.
I think "the ability to visualize what is in your mind" is an extreme generalization.
It's the ability to visualize the letters that make up a word and while it may be a useful skill sometimes, like when people ask you to spell out your email address, personally I don't find it of much use other than that.
I suppose it's either genetic or priorities that your brain developed as a child.
I have a problem associating the words 'right' and 'left' with their respective directions and I need a second to translate.
Also, I'm a graphic design student and I find that I and people I study with generally visualize ideas in a more detailed way than people outside the field, I wouldn't call it a deficiency, just a different more hard-coded skillset that not everyone should necessarily have.
I had this Brother printer/scanner combo and after a while it ran out of magenta ink, it wouldn't let me print at all even though I wanted to print a greyscale image and the black ink head was pretty much full.
So no more printers for me.
I'm studying graphic design so I have access to a bunch of printers at school right now but I don't think I'll be buying a printer after this.
I guess self-sustaining would be clearer.
Furthermore, I might be misinformed but to my knowledge Palestinians as a distinct group have existed for about a century.