However, human eyesight blurs the individual red, green, and blue dots together to give the impression of more than 766 colors. And that's what matters--what you actually see, not what's being generated by the display.
Yes, exactly, so to say that the LCD only can display 766 colors you have to ignore the fundamental nature of color and human vision. The three colored subpixels correspond to the three color receptors in our eyes. Would say that we can only see red, green, and blue?
I mean take the color brown. There is no "wavelength" for brown. So you must claim that either the color "brown" doesn't exist, or you acknowledge that color is necessarily about a combination of components, and thus the argument that the LCD is "only" displaying shades of red, blue, and green becomes nonsensical.
A pixel with its green subpixel fully on, its blue subpixel fully on, and its red subpixel off is displaying cyan for any meaningful definition of the term. There is no way to "generate" cyan without using a combination of green and blue, so saying that the LCD can't display cyan because it can only display green and blue is laughably foolish.
Sorry, I got the OP's point, which was to use an invalid concept of color to incorrectly calculate the number of displayable colors in an attempt to make this not look like a big deal.
Also, the LCD in question can't use pulse generation to generate more colors, it uses dithering, and pixel-level dithering looks terrible.
Bullshit. I don't know what your gauge for "better" is, but if you honestly believe that the USA is not, never has been, nor ever will be "better" than any other country on the planet, you've got a sickly biased view of the world.
He doesn't believe that, it's his twisted way of deflecting criticism of the U.S. The proof is in the pudding: he believes the U.S. is justified in using military force to impose its morality on other nations and that you can trust its intentions to be true, whereas, say, the People's Republic of China is not.
But if you criticize the U.S. and question how a country that has done the things it has done can be justified in imposing its morality through military force, then the response is "but China/other countries are just as bad/worse, why do you single out the U.S.?" The obvious answer is because he has singled out the U.S. as being a worthy instrument of global change, whereas we all agree PRC shouldn't be telling other countries what to do.
It'd be kinda like if you were talking about treating an open wound, and he suggested treating it with something toxic. You said "that's toxic!" and he'd reply "but so is poop, but I don't see you criticizing that!" even though poop was never on the table as a suggested salve. But he doesn't want you questioning his treatment, and thus the non sequitor.
i would rather someone lie to me than kill me. so bring on the propaganda, from all directions. let it flow freely. beats suicide bombs and bombs from the sky
Except the purpose of the propaganda is to get you to agree that someone else needs to be killed, and that your tax dollars need to be spent to do it.
It is not in any way, shape, or form about reducing the amount of violent conflict. The thing that reduces the amount of violent conflict in our society is the democratic process, whereby leaders who try to get us involved in foolish wars that do nothing but bring misery to the people can be removed from power. Government and military propaganda is designed to counteract the power of democracy by deluding the people into thinking the war is good and just, that the war is going well and should be continued, and finally that if we dare stop the war that even worse things will happen.
In no way was this military plan to spread propaganda through blogs about reducing the number of bombs dropped, of reducing the number of people killed. It was in every sense about increasing the violence.
That's a good semantic argument, do you have a substantive one?
It's not the point whether a given thing can be called "propaganda" or "propagandistic". The point is that the military was considering using the specific type of propaganda where they intentionally mislead citizens by 1) producing false or misleading information and 2) presenting this information as though it did not come from a military source.
This is the problem, this is the type of propaganda that undermines democracy. It doesn't matter that "Loose Lips Sink Ships" is a kind of propaganda.
"For example, a Greek treatise published a generation before Archimedes' proofs of the lever laws explains why, if you were a galley slave, you'd want to work the oars near the center of the ship instead of closer to the hull."
Not a very useful treatise since if you were a galley slave, you probably couldn't read! Oh, and they wouldn't let you off the ship to visit the library and check out the treatise anyway.
Uh, that part is fine. It's the part where you conclude that having three distinct wavelengths which can each individually be shone at 256 levels of brightness results in 766 unique permutations. That's hilariously wrong. So much so I assumed it was intentional. If not, I'm sorry for overestimating your intelligence. I won't make the same mistake again.
I'd only give 5 stars to a really amazing movie, but to only give 3/5 stars to a movie I enjoyed feels too low.
I don't think this is a problem of it being a 1-5 scale instead of 1-10. It's not like there's really that much information given by scoring a movie a 7 instead of 8, since it's all subjective anyway on any given day those scores could have been reversed.
I think it's more the extremely common situation where people don't want to give an "average" score, so you get score inflation such that only the top half of the scale is ever used except for palpably bad movies. So even in a 1-10 scale, you're only really using 6-10. You might as well use a 0-5 scale, where "1" means good, and a 0 is anything worse than that.
I personally try to solve this by firmly keeping in mind the idea that the middle score should be for the "average" movie. If I'm never giving out scores that are 3 or lower, then I'm not rating them correctly. Unfortunately, I'm the only one who does this, which just means that I'm giving movies lower scores than everyone else even if I felt the same about the movie. So it's not much of a solution.;)
Even a screen with an 8-bit DAC is only capable of displaying 766 colours - each subpixel can show 255 brightnesses of three distinct wavelengths of light (as each subpixel can show the same black this makes 766, not 768).
Just an FYI, these kinds of trolls work better if you save the obvious nonsense for later rather than starting right off the bat.
But you got some mods to bite, that was good at least.
All that will happen, in the long run, is that ISO will become untrusted, marginalized and obsolete.
With Microsoft's Office monopoly becoming further entrenched as a side effect. Haha, side effect? More like the point of the whole operation.
Here's the deal as it stands right now (or rather shortly before this farce began): - ISO was well respected. - Open Document Format was accepted by ISO as a standard.
These two things combined give Open Office (and any suite that implements ODF, since its an ACTUAL open standard so you can do that) a lot of built-in approval, and makes them look very good to governments/organizations who are starting to mandate open formats for documentation. This is bad for MS, half of their business being the Office monopoly (which supports and is supported by the Windows monopoly).
So what's their strategy here? Well one (or both) of two things happen: - Their BS non-open "open standard" is accepted, so they can claim their format meets the needs of governments who mandate open standards. - ISO is no longer respected as a standards organization, so their approval of ODF no longer means as much.
Whichever happens, their little problem with ODF being a standard goes away and MS Office remains the only "standard" (de-facto or ISO-approved) that matters. They don't really care which. Oh no, their manipulation of the process is exposed! Guess that means you can't trust ISO any more! Frankly I give even odds to both happening. But even if ISO ends up rejecting OOXML, it's going to take a hell of a lot to stop the second from happening.
Well, the way it works for organic tissue and radio-carbon dating is that new higher isotopes of carbon are being created all the time, and have a generally equal distribution in the environment at large. When an organism is alive, it will continuously take in new carbon from the environment (food, CO2 for plants, etc) and thus maintain the same ratio of carbon isotopes. When it dies, however, it stops taking in new carbon, and thus slowly the existing radioactive isotopes will decay and not be replaced so the ratio decreases and you can calculate the age.
I only use the example of radio-carbon because I'm familiar with it. I'd assume it's somewhat similar with dating geologic formations, in that while say sediments are being deposited on a river it's being exposed to a constant influx of new material, but once the sediment is well buried it becomes 'fixed'. But like I said, that's an assumption.
I wrote about the implications of Martian salt for Astrobiology a couple of years back, in an article in Astrobiology
Wait, wait, was your article about the implications of Martian salt for the science of astrobiology? Or the implications of Martian salt for the publication Astrobiology?
if Led Zeppelin has taught us anything, it's that a Stairway to Heaven doesn't make any damn sense at all unless you're already so high you're practically in space already.
Well all those cults like to hole up in their little compound off out of our way.
This cult likes to convert celebrities and use them to evangelize their cult, spread itself across the country, and litigate anyone who tries to slow their acquisition of money.
Basically, Scientology has a much greater chance of affecting me or someone I know than any of those other cults. Mainly because those other cults were actually "cults" run by some crazy messiah-delusion leader, while Scientology is a deliberate scheme for accruing vast amounts of wealth and power in the guise of a cult.
Maybe they should schedual the first start for one of the predicted end dates ala the Mayans and Egyptans.
I want to see them turn it on too, but that's tempting fate a bit much maybe? So to make sure they can't accidentally cause the Mayan predictions to come true, they'll deliberately activate the machine several days before the end of the Mayan calendar.
Only once they turn it on, as it's powering up, they'll get a phone call from an anthropologist who will tell them that he just discovered that the previous calculations as to the start of the calendar were wrong, and it is in fact THAT VERY DAY that the calendar ends! Oh bitter irony, when your attempt to avoid the prophecy causes it to come true!
How on earth do you load the program into memory (and once again into CPU cache) to run it if you can't???
Copies performed as an "essential step" of using the program are exempted as not infringing on copyright. So copying the program from disk into memory in order to run it is not infringement, however creating a second copy of the game in-memory to get around the anti-cheating code may not be.
Personally, I've also argued that this clause means that you are not legally required to accept EULAs, or at least that you aren't violating copyright by refusing to accept them since you don't need a copyright license to make the necessary copies to install and run the program.
China has threatened to invade every time the Taiwanese so much as utter the word independence, and threatened war with us if we try to materially support Taiwan's independence, and you think it's even remotely possible that us trying to put nukes on Taiwan wouldn't cause them to "pull a Kennedy"? In what universe?
At least you recognize that it would be insane to not back down WHEN they threaten war.
And WHEN we backed down and removed the nukes, Taiwan, having indicated by accepting the nukes that it intended to assert its independence and back it up with force, WOULD be invaded faster than you can say "cultural revolution".
You're not interested in seeing China in Taiwan? Well your idea would guarantee that Taiwan is occupied by the mainland in short order. Or that we'd be at war -- nuclear war -- with China. GREAT fucking idea.
If everyone were good and played fair, any system would work.
With the corollary that if nobody had any reason to cheat, then everyone would play fair, and the system would work.
I think this is part of why "communism" only seems to work on the scale of the "commune", where ultimately even the most corrupt person could, what, lord over the persons and crops of fifty people? Have the most sweet potato of any villager? Scale that up to the level of a nation-state, and suddenly taking control and abusing the system provides a lot more gains in wealth and power.
Similarly with ISO, in the past the system worked because, by and large, nobody had any significant reason to game the system entirely. Sure different companies had their reasons to promote their standard, but ultimately it was still about cooperation and interoperability. While I may be missing some cases, I feel confident stating that this is the first time a standard presented to ISO has the potential to make or break a multi-billion dollar monopoly.
So of course when that kind of cash is on the line, a system that before survived because there wasn't much incentive to abuse it is found to be completely vulnerable. Kind of like if that commune suddenly found itself sitting on a gold mine.
Slashdot Mirror
However, human eyesight blurs the individual red, green, and blue dots together to give the impression of more than 766 colors. And that's what matters--what you actually see, not what's being generated by the display.
Yes, exactly, so to say that the LCD only can display 766 colors you have to ignore the fundamental nature of color and human vision. The three colored subpixels correspond to the three color receptors in our eyes. Would say that we can only see red, green, and blue?
I mean take the color brown. There is no "wavelength" for brown. So you must claim that either the color "brown" doesn't exist, or you acknowledge that color is necessarily about a combination of components, and thus the argument that the LCD is "only" displaying shades of red, blue, and green becomes nonsensical.
A pixel with its green subpixel fully on, its blue subpixel fully on, and its red subpixel off is displaying cyan for any meaningful definition of the term. There is no way to "generate" cyan without using a combination of green and blue, so saying that the LCD can't display cyan because it can only display green and blue is laughably foolish.
Sorry, I got the OP's point, which was to use an invalid concept of color to incorrectly calculate the number of displayable colors in an attempt to make this not look like a big deal.
Also, the LCD in question can't use pulse generation to generate more colors, it uses dithering, and pixel-level dithering looks terrible.
Bullshit. I don't know what your gauge for "better" is, but if you honestly believe that the USA is not, never has been, nor ever will be "better" than any other country on the planet, you've got a sickly biased view of the world.
He doesn't believe that, it's his twisted way of deflecting criticism of the U.S. The proof is in the pudding: he believes the U.S. is justified in using military force to impose its morality on other nations and that you can trust its intentions to be true, whereas, say, the People's Republic of China is not.
But if you criticize the U.S. and question how a country that has done the things it has done can be justified in imposing its morality through military force, then the response is "but China/other countries are just as bad/worse, why do you single out the U.S.?" The obvious answer is because he has singled out the U.S. as being a worthy instrument of global change, whereas we all agree PRC shouldn't be telling other countries what to do.
It'd be kinda like if you were talking about treating an open wound, and he suggested treating it with something toxic. You said "that's toxic!" and he'd reply "but so is poop, but I don't see you criticizing that!" even though poop was never on the table as a suggested salve. But he doesn't want you questioning his treatment, and thus the non sequitor.
Hope that explains things.
i would rather someone lie to me than kill me. so bring on the propaganda, from all directions. let it flow freely. beats suicide bombs and bombs from the sky
Except the purpose of the propaganda is to get you to agree that someone else needs to be killed, and that your tax dollars need to be spent to do it.
It is not in any way, shape, or form about reducing the amount of violent conflict. The thing that reduces the amount of violent conflict in our society is the democratic process, whereby leaders who try to get us involved in foolish wars that do nothing but bring misery to the people can be removed from power. Government and military propaganda is designed to counteract the power of democracy by deluding the people into thinking the war is good and just, that the war is going well and should be continued, and finally that if we dare stop the war that even worse things will happen.
In no way was this military plan to spread propaganda through blogs about reducing the number of bombs dropped, of reducing the number of people killed. It was in every sense about increasing the violence.
Still say "bring on the propaganda"?
That's a good semantic argument, do you have a substantive one?
It's not the point whether a given thing can be called "propaganda" or "propagandistic". The point is that the military was considering using the specific type of propaganda where they intentionally mislead citizens by 1) producing false or misleading information and 2) presenting this information as though it did not come from a military source.
This is the problem, this is the type of propaganda that undermines democracy. It doesn't matter that "Loose Lips Sink Ships" is a kind of propaganda.
I'm no historian either, which is why I used the weasel word "probably".
Which is pretty accurate, if you were *alive* at the time this treatise was written, you were "probably" illiterate.
"For example, a Greek treatise published a generation before Archimedes' proofs of the lever laws explains why, if you were a galley slave, you'd want to work the oars near the center of the ship instead of closer to the hull."
Not a very useful treatise since if you were a galley slave, you probably couldn't read! Oh, and they wouldn't let you off the ship to visit the library and check out the treatise anyway.
Those poor, poor galley slaves.
Uh, that part is fine. It's the part where you conclude that having three distinct wavelengths which can each individually be shone at 256 levels of brightness results in 766 unique permutations. That's hilariously wrong. So much so I assumed it was intentional. If not, I'm sorry for overestimating your intelligence. I won't make the same mistake again.
I'd only give 5 stars to a really amazing movie, but to only give 3/5 stars to a movie I enjoyed feels too low.
;)
I don't think this is a problem of it being a 1-5 scale instead of 1-10. It's not like there's really that much information given by scoring a movie a 7 instead of 8, since it's all subjective anyway on any given day those scores could have been reversed.
I think it's more the extremely common situation where people don't want to give an "average" score, so you get score inflation such that only the top half of the scale is ever used except for palpably bad movies. So even in a 1-10 scale, you're only really using 6-10. You might as well use a 0-5 scale, where "1" means good, and a 0 is anything worse than that.
I personally try to solve this by firmly keeping in mind the idea that the middle score should be for the "average" movie. If I'm never giving out scores that are 3 or lower, then I'm not rating them correctly. Unfortunately, I'm the only one who does this, which just means that I'm giving movies lower scores than everyone else even if I felt the same about the movie. So it's not much of a solution.
Even a screen with an 8-bit DAC is only capable of displaying 766 colours - each subpixel can show 255 brightnesses of three distinct wavelengths of light (as each subpixel can show the same black this makes 766, not 768).
Just an FYI, these kinds of trolls work better if you save the obvious nonsense for later rather than starting right off the bat.
But you got some mods to bite, that was good at least.
If you can't win, simply get the rules of the game changed. Lawyers and politicians understand this. Nerds don't.
:)
Not true, every nerd worth his salts knows how to change the "rules" of the copy protection "game", whether that be with cheat sheets or a debugger.
All that will happen, in the long run, is that ISO will become untrusted, marginalized and obsolete.
With Microsoft's Office monopoly becoming further entrenched as a side effect. Haha, side effect? More like the point of the whole operation.
Here's the deal as it stands right now (or rather shortly before this farce began):
- ISO was well respected.
- Open Document Format was accepted by ISO as a standard.
These two things combined give Open Office (and any suite that implements ODF, since its an ACTUAL open standard so you can do that) a lot of built-in approval, and makes them look very good to governments/organizations who are starting to mandate open formats for documentation. This is bad for MS, half of their business being the Office monopoly (which supports and is supported by the Windows monopoly).
So what's their strategy here? Well one (or both) of two things happen:
- Their BS non-open "open standard" is accepted, so they can claim their format meets the needs of governments who mandate open standards.
- ISO is no longer respected as a standards organization, so their approval of ODF no longer means as much.
Whichever happens, their little problem with ODF being a standard goes away and MS Office remains the only "standard" (de-facto or ISO-approved) that matters. They don't really care which. Oh no, their manipulation of the process is exposed! Guess that means you can't trust ISO any more! Frankly I give even odds to both happening. But even if ISO ends up rejecting OOXML, it's going to take a hell of a lot to stop the second from happening.
Well, the way it works for organic tissue and radio-carbon dating is that new higher isotopes of carbon are being created all the time, and have a generally equal distribution in the environment at large. When an organism is alive, it will continuously take in new carbon from the environment (food, CO2 for plants, etc) and thus maintain the same ratio of carbon isotopes. When it dies, however, it stops taking in new carbon, and thus slowly the existing radioactive isotopes will decay and not be replaced so the ratio decreases and you can calculate the age.
I only use the example of radio-carbon because I'm familiar with it. I'd assume it's somewhat similar with dating geologic formations, in that while say sediments are being deposited on a river it's being exposed to a constant influx of new material, but once the sediment is well buried it becomes 'fixed'. But like I said, that's an assumption.
I wrote about the implications of Martian salt for Astrobiology a couple of years back, in an article in Astrobiology
Wait, wait, was your article about the implications of Martian salt for the science of astrobiology? Or the implications of Martian salt for the publication Astrobiology?
Inquiring minds want to know!
if Led Zeppelin has taught us anything, it's that a Stairway to Heaven doesn't make any damn sense at all unless you're already so high you're practically in space already.
Well it makes perfect sense to me!
I lol'd a Jonestown, Waco, and all the others.
Well all those cults like to hole up in their little compound off out of our way.
This cult likes to convert celebrities and use them to evangelize their cult, spread itself across the country, and litigate anyone who tries to slow their acquisition of money.
Basically, Scientology has a much greater chance of affecting me or someone I know than any of those other cults. Mainly because those other cults were actually "cults" run by some crazy messiah-delusion leader, while Scientology is a deliberate scheme for accruing vast amounts of wealth and power in the guise of a cult.
What's the best build/spec for a claim? Is that frost or fire?
I personally prefer a Flame build, you puss-oozing brain damaged sad excuse for an inebriated baboon!
Does someone want to tell me what definition of "organic" they are using, which can be found in comets and moon geysers?
"Compounds containing carbon".
That's all it means, really. Methane is a common one.
Maybe they should schedual the first start for one of the predicted end dates ala the Mayans and Egyptans.
I want to see them turn it on too, but that's tempting fate a bit much maybe? So to make sure they can't accidentally cause the Mayan predictions to come true, they'll deliberately activate the machine several days before the end of the Mayan calendar.
Only once they turn it on, as it's powering up, they'll get a phone call from an anthropologist who will tell them that he just discovered that the previous calculations as to the start of the calendar were wrong, and it is in fact THAT VERY DAY that the calendar ends! Oh bitter irony, when your attempt to avoid the prophecy causes it to come true!
Don't pee down my back and tell me its raining!
Oh, no! I wouldn't do that. No, certainly not.
However, you do seem to have some kind of water pipe leak, and it smells kinda briny. And I'm standing up here above you in order to check it out.
I could stop it for you for $100/hr?
Oh, wait, it stopped on its own. Hold on, gotta go grab another beer.
The episodes are already online. Not "coming soon", not "to be"... you can see them right now.
Not "to be", eh? Well I guess that finally answer that question.
If I knew someone as competitive and gullible as Gabe, I'd be on Chore Wars so fast...
How on earth do you load the program into memory (and once again into CPU cache) to run it if you can't???
Copies performed as an "essential step" of using the program are exempted as not infringing on copyright. So copying the program from disk into memory in order to run it is not infringement, however creating a second copy of the game in-memory to get around the anti-cheating code may not be.
Personally, I've also argued that this clause means that you are not legally required to accept EULAs, or at least that you aren't violating copyright by refusing to accept them since you don't need a copyright license to make the necessary copies to install and run the program.
Here's a link to the relevant section of the law: TITLE 17 - CHAPTER 1 - 117
Oh, China might "pull a Kennedy"? Ya think?
China has threatened to invade every time the Taiwanese so much as utter the word independence, and threatened war with us if we try to materially support Taiwan's independence, and you think it's even remotely possible that us trying to put nukes on Taiwan wouldn't cause them to "pull a Kennedy"? In what universe?
At least you recognize that it would be insane to not back down WHEN they threaten war.
And WHEN we backed down and removed the nukes, Taiwan, having indicated by accepting the nukes that it intended to assert its independence and back it up with force, WOULD be invaded faster than you can say "cultural revolution".
You're not interested in seeing China in Taiwan? Well your idea would guarantee that Taiwan is occupied by the mainland in short order. Or that we'd be at war -- nuclear war -- with China. GREAT fucking idea.
There is no way of knowing what past humans eyes have seen.
Thus the disclaimer of "No other known object".
If everyone were good and played fair, any system would work.
With the corollary that if nobody had any reason to cheat, then everyone would play fair, and the system would work.
I think this is part of why "communism" only seems to work on the scale of the "commune", where ultimately even the most corrupt person could, what, lord over the persons and crops of fifty people? Have the most sweet potato of any villager? Scale that up to the level of a nation-state, and suddenly taking control and abusing the system provides a lot more gains in wealth and power.
Similarly with ISO, in the past the system worked because, by and large, nobody had any significant reason to game the system entirely. Sure different companies had their reasons to promote their standard, but ultimately it was still about cooperation and interoperability. While I may be missing some cases, I feel confident stating that this is the first time a standard presented to ISO has the potential to make or break a multi-billion dollar monopoly.
So of course when that kind of cash is on the line, a system that before survived because there wasn't much incentive to abuse it is found to be completely vulnerable. Kind of like if that commune suddenly found itself sitting on a gold mine.