It looks okay on my hardware calibrated screen, but as you've mentioned, virtually no one calibrates their displays so it really should be designed for that.
They're not good for any stupid full-screen use. They're quite nice for productive work using a modern windowing operating system (i.e. anything from the period between 1993 and 2012 or so).
I've got two 27" 16x9s side by side right now (at work) with a bunch of terminals open, some code, some papers (both ones I'm reading and ones I'm writing), browser windows and a spreadsheet (shudder). I can have code generating figures for a paper I'm writing, Google scholar open to find references, the paper itself, and be keeping an eye on processing running, at the same time. Oh, and Slashdot, of course.
I've had just this argument right here on Slashdot. The web was designed to be fluid. Absolute layout should never have been added to the standard. All the trendy wanna-be artsy types can't figure out how to do decent looking flexible layouts (the real artists can, but there aren't that many of them) so they all design magazine pages instead.
Fortunately they put so much crap on the sides I usually just zoom until that bit gets cut off.
Proton and larger particle colliders don't really suffer from synchrotron radiation because the particles are so massive. Electrons are very light so they have to be travelling much faster to have the same energy, thus synchrotron radiation becomes a problem.
Physicists want an electron collider because electrons are fundamental particles. When you smash two of them together (or an electron and a positron) you get a nice clean collision. Protons are composite particles and what you get depends on how the individual quarks happen to collide.
Not quite. While one or a few of these chips might make a nice small source of x-rays or electron beams they are certainly interested in putting a bunch of them together to make high energy physics linear electron accelerators (thus the comparison to SLAC). It would still be big, but since these things are more efficient than the microwave acceleration normal linear accelerators use, you could build a smaller one that achieved the same energy. Or a same size or bigger one that achieved higher energies.
This is timely: the next generation of electron accelerators is being discussed currently in high energy physics circles, designed to follow up on the discoveries made at the LHC.
Incidentally, this technique was covered on Slashdot a few years ago when it was just a proof of principle.
It is standard - it's based on the source. And that's a useful distinction, far more so than the energy.
You said it yourself - astronomers may differentiate based on energy simply because they don't know the source, so they have to assume it. If they know the source, or have a good reason to think it's something in particular, they use the standard terminology.
Astronomers may call it gamma radiation because they don't know the source. It's true that most natural higher energy radiation is gamma while lower is x-ray, but there is overlap between the two and artificial or unusual sources (like particle accelerators) can produce very high energy x-rays, or very low energy gamma rays.
Contrary to what you might assume, brain development isn't complete until about the mid twenties. Various other, more externally obvious, physical changes aren't complete to seventeen, eighteen or sometimes a little later (height being one of them). Has it been so long since puberty that you've forgotten? It is VERY clear that physical development isn't finished at 13. Brain development is a little more subtle, not being of the "I'm getting hair where??" type of change, but it's very real. Brain growth is easily measured during puberty (because it's freaking fast) and histopathological studies have indicated that primary myelination isn't complete in some structures until the mid twenties.
Maturation schedules have actually been changing in recent decades, with puberty tending to begin earlier, which is a cause for concern.
Have I addressed all the errors (all the things you said) in your post? If not, I apologize. I don't know about your "line," but if your people really reach physical maturity at 13 you probably want to check your synthetic estrogen-mimicer exposure, right away.
By the way, I am a working scientist studying brain development. I can give you peer reviewed references for any of the above if you like. I sincerely hope you don't need peer reviewed references to tell you that 13 year old girls and boys are not physically mature though.
I/O devices? Bounce your knee one way for +1, the other way for -1.
Yes, if you were greedy you'd get caught. If you just used it to enhance your play a little, you'd probably be okay. Counting cards isn't illegal. Using devices to do so is.
You've demonstrated you, like most people, don't know anything about statistics. What you say is possible, with a pure chance based game, if you collect an infinite dataset. Most people have to leave the table before that happens. In addition, he was playing poker. Poker has a human element. You can guess your opponents' cards legitimately by keeping track of their play style.
Because it's MUCH more annoying when my phone doesn't use the same connector as everyone else's than if the phone and tablet I actually own myself use different connectors.
Biologically, that's a load of crap. Unless by "adult" you mean "completed physical development" in which case everyone younger than mid twenties is a child. Teenagers certainly are.
"Teenager" covers reasonably well the biological period known as adolescence. People in that stage aren't anything like adults, biologically, including their brain development. In terms of experience they're even more child like.
That's not actually really new either - people have been shooting lasers into super cold rubidium gas for years. What's new here is that these guys shot two photons in and watched them come out again.
A photon has no rest mass (or energy). It does have energy associated with it's motion, and energy is equivalent to mass. You can use that mass/energy as the term in the classical momentum equation, or calculate the non-classical momentum directly based on it's frequency.
Clearly Bill Gates wanted a single button for control-alt-delete because Windows users had to hit it so often. Any function used that frequently should be mapped to a single button, not a combination. Of course, Save should be mapped to a key instead of control-S as well.....
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah... tepples is a little intense. Just put porn on the side. Or another site to read while you're waiting for Slashdot bloat to scroll.
I've never understood why people maximize windows. Particularly browsers.
It looks okay on my hardware calibrated screen, but as you've mentioned, virtually no one calibrates their displays so it really should be designed for that.
They're not good for any stupid full-screen use. They're quite nice for productive work using a modern windowing operating system (i.e. anything from the period between 1993 and 2012 or so).
I've got two 27" 16x9s side by side right now (at work) with a bunch of terminals open, some code, some papers (both ones I'm reading and ones I'm writing), browser windows and a spreadsheet (shudder). I can have code generating figures for a paper I'm writing, Google scholar open to find references, the paper itself, and be keeping an eye on processing running, at the same time. Oh, and Slashdot, of course.
I've had just this argument right here on Slashdot. The web was designed to be fluid. Absolute layout should never have been added to the standard. All the trendy wanna-be artsy types can't figure out how to do decent looking flexible layouts (the real artists can, but there aren't that many of them) so they all design magazine pages instead.
Fortunately they put so much crap on the sides I usually just zoom until that bit gets cut off.
Proton and larger particle colliders don't really suffer from synchrotron radiation because the particles are so massive. Electrons are very light so they have to be travelling much faster to have the same energy, thus synchrotron radiation becomes a problem.
Physicists want an electron collider because electrons are fundamental particles. When you smash two of them together (or an electron and a positron) you get a nice clean collision. Protons are composite particles and what you get depends on how the individual quarks happen to collide.
That's 1 GeV per metre.
Not quite. While one or a few of these chips might make a nice small source of x-rays or electron beams they are certainly interested in putting a bunch of them together to make high energy physics linear electron accelerators (thus the comparison to SLAC). It would still be big, but since these things are more efficient than the microwave acceleration normal linear accelerators use, you could build a smaller one that achieved the same energy. Or a same size or bigger one that achieved higher energies.
This is timely: the next generation of electron accelerators is being discussed currently in high energy physics circles, designed to follow up on the discoveries made at the LHC.
Incidentally, this technique was covered on Slashdot a few years ago when it was just a proof of principle.
Or a dense material like... air. A sheet of paper works quite well too.
It is standard - it's based on the source. And that's a useful distinction, far more so than the energy.
You said it yourself - astronomers may differentiate based on energy simply because they don't know the source, so they have to assume it. If they know the source, or have a good reason to think it's something in particular, they use the standard terminology.
Astronomers may call it gamma radiation because they don't know the source. It's true that most natural higher energy radiation is gamma while lower is x-ray, but there is overlap between the two and artificial or unusual sources (like particle accelerators) can produce very high energy x-rays, or very low energy gamma rays.
Not as meaningless as you think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt#Distance
Contrary to what you might assume, brain development isn't complete until about the mid twenties. Various other, more externally obvious, physical changes aren't complete to seventeen, eighteen or sometimes a little later (height being one of them). Has it been so long since puberty that you've forgotten? It is VERY clear that physical development isn't finished at 13. Brain development is a little more subtle, not being of the "I'm getting hair where??" type of change, but it's very real. Brain growth is easily measured during puberty (because it's freaking fast) and histopathological studies have indicated that primary myelination isn't complete in some structures until the mid twenties.
Maturation schedules have actually been changing in recent decades, with puberty tending to begin earlier, which is a cause for concern.
Have I addressed all the errors (all the things you said) in your post? If not, I apologize. I don't know about your "line," but if your people really reach physical maturity at 13 you probably want to check your synthetic estrogen-mimicer exposure, right away.
By the way, I am a working scientist studying brain development. I can give you peer reviewed references for any of the above if you like. I sincerely hope you don't need peer reviewed references to tell you that 13 year old girls and boys are not physically mature though.
If I had a kid and she did that I'd give her a high five. Children should be congratulated for outsmarting control freak adults.
Care to clarify?
I/O devices? Bounce your knee one way for +1, the other way for -1.
Yes, if you were greedy you'd get caught. If you just used it to enhance your play a little, you'd probably be okay. Counting cards isn't illegal. Using devices to do so is.
Except for the vault and gas masks, I think I have all that stuff in my car right now. Plus rope and tools.
You've demonstrated you, like most people, don't know anything about statistics. What you say is possible, with a pure chance based game, if you collect an infinite dataset. Most people have to leave the table before that happens. In addition, he was playing poker. Poker has a human element. You can guess your opponents' cards legitimately by keeping track of their play style.
Interesting... we all carry toasty little computers these days. How do casinos know if my smartphone is helping me count cards or not?
Because it's MUCH more annoying when my phone doesn't use the same connector as everyone else's than if the phone and tablet I actually own myself use different connectors.
Biologically, that's a load of crap. Unless by "adult" you mean "completed physical development" in which case everyone younger than mid twenties is a child. Teenagers certainly are.
"Teenager" covers reasonably well the biological period known as adolescence. People in that stage aren't anything like adults, biologically, including their brain development. In terms of experience they're even more child like.
That's not actually really new either - people have been shooting lasers into super cold rubidium gas for years. What's new here is that these guys shot two photons in and watched them come out again.
E=mc^2. Rearranged, m = E / c^2.
A photon has no rest mass (or energy). It does have energy associated with it's motion, and energy is equivalent to mass. You can use that mass/energy as the term in the classical momentum equation, or calculate the non-classical momentum directly based on it's frequency.
Pretty ineffective. They kept hitting that guy and he still wouldn't stay down.
Clearly Bill Gates wanted a single button for control-alt-delete because Windows users had to hit it so often. Any function used that frequently should be mapped to a single button, not a combination. Of course, Save should be mapped to a key instead of control-S as well.....