Earlier that day at Microsoft... "Hey Pete, we can't get the combined search and address bar to work properly" "Hmm. Ok, don't worry, we'll just spin it as a security feature".
If you have to even ask that question, then you won't get a programming job that requires math skills. You'll be the bottom of the barrel in your programming group, and then a few of years later promoted as their manager because you can't do any of the technical stuff but are great friends with the boss, or you'll end up doing system support swapping out tape backups and fixing printer jams.
Modern Warfare 2 sold 6.4million copies in the first week in the US and UK alone and yet there weren't 6.4million new mass murders on the streets.
To play the devil's advocate, if there were 6.3 million new mass murders then it would be ok too? How do you know that the number of murders didn't significantly increase, or that the number of murders won't increase due to the effects of this game on young minds once they grow up? You're lack of scientific evidence is worse than that on the other side of the argument, with the difference that they actually have done studies (however flawed) and you have not, your pulling conclusions from your anus.
Ever since MS released it's excellent Security Essentials I've noticed a spike in Virus program email phishing and scare mongering. Looks like those virus companies are getting onto some really tough times, and should be kept at a distance.
"in less than 20 minutes, without compromising accuracy. Ordinarily, using the same system, this would take more than a day" This just means that they were doing a pretty damn lousy job before they fixed the problem.
Isn't it also obvious that if you have a floating helium balloon inside your car, when you brake the balloon will move forward inside the car, or when you accelerate the balloon will be pushed back? Isn't it also obvious that if your friend has three identical boxes with one of them containing a prize, you choose one box and he opens it revealing that the prize is not inside it and he tells you that you have one last chance to choose, then it doesn't matter if you keep your current choice or switch to the last remaining box, since it is 50/50 that the prize is in either?
You're eyes see 2D only anyway. You get two images, one on each retina, which your brain uses to interpret the scene as 3D. The utility of 3D glasses is that you can watch the scene from the same point of view irrespective of your location relative to the monitor/tv or cinema screen.
I see now, you're not trying to project only 2 images cloned into multiple slices, you're actually projecting the 3D scene itself where each slice has a unique image of the scene viewed from that angle. So instead of a camera with 2 focal points capturing what you should see with your left and right eye, you'd need a camera with a focal point per slice to capture what you would see at each eye position.
You're overlooking that adding more viewing angles doesn't change fact that you're only adding more sweet spots, with the requirement that your eyes must not be located in between sweet spots. Otherwise given sweet spots A and B, your right eye could be looking at the left eye version of sweet spot A, and your left eye could be looking at the right eye version sweet spot B.
So you still have to keep your head still and within the sweet spot otherwise you creep into an inverted 3D image. Only thing you're adding with extra directions is extra viewers, where each viewer is watching an effectively 2 direction monitor, and you're back where you started.
You'd need to be able to do eye tracking with directional projection if you want to expand the sweet spot, or, just use a pair of cheep circular polarized glasses.
Dude, good idea, I see a market developing for circular polarized contact lenses... I'll even be their first customer (after the rabbit trials of course).
I've seen tens of posts with devices and TVs promising true 3D without the glasses, and they're all bullshit vaporware. If you want true 3D you need glasses, period. There is no other way to effectively direct a different picture to each of your two retinas at the same time. If someone invents such a way you'll first hear about it in scientific publications, not on some bs device that no ones ever heard of. If a device claims to give true 3D without glasses, then it is either bs, or requires you to position your eyes in a very specific location at which point it would be better/easier to just use glasses anyway.
I've long ago stopped getting excited by such bs marketing stunts. Until they actually post something like "Directional pixels deliver photons to your eyes through eye-tracking camera" rather than the current "3D without glasses!!!!1111eleventyone".
I also love my programming work. I've only worked for scientists, professors, and in a small but experienced business run by a PhD, and they've all treated me like gold. They understand what intellectual work involves and how difficult it can be, and I get much praise. It's scary reading about the "managers" and the "big companies" that other people have had experience with, but in fun way, like watching a horror movie.
The ridiculous UIs in tv and movies help to disconnect me as a viewer from the hard work that other areas of the program/film applied to immerse me in the story. Such ghastly and unrealistic UIs are similar to terrible acting and unrealistic dialog. These days I just laugh at such UIs as I laughed at the acting and dialog of Team America, that is, I consider it a deliberate attempt at comedy.
Slashdot Mirror
we understand 0% of the world around us well enough to say with 100% confidence what the outcome of a certain event will be
I'd say that if an event is certain, we know 100% what the outcome will be.
Posted by CmdrTaco on Friday April 02, @06:17
CmdrTaco fails again.
Earlier that day at Microsoft...
"Hey Pete, we can't get the combined search and address bar to work properly"
"Hmm. Ok, don't worry, we'll just spin it as a security feature".
If you have to even ask that question, then you won't get a programming job that requires math skills. You'll be the bottom of the barrel in your programming group, and then a few of years later promoted as their manager because you can't do any of the technical stuff but are great friends with the boss, or you'll end up doing system support swapping out tape backups and fixing printer jams.
There are also a pile of studies that show smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.
Modern Warfare 2 sold 6.4million copies in the first week in the US and UK alone and yet there weren't 6.4million new mass murders on the streets.
To play the devil's advocate, if there were 6.3 million new mass murders then it would be ok too? How do you know that the number of murders didn't significantly increase, or that the number of murders won't increase due to the effects of this game on young minds once they grow up? You're lack of scientific evidence is worse than that on the other side of the argument, with the difference that they actually have done studies (however flawed) and you have not, your pulling conclusions from your anus.
Ever since MS released it's excellent Security Essentials I've noticed a spike in Virus program email phishing and scare mongering. Looks like those virus companies are getting onto some really tough times, and should be kept at a distance.
Isn't holocaust denial illegal in Germany, and doesn't making it illegal go against these articles?
I wish it were so, but in a democracy, everyone's vote counts the same.
So, how do you justify the billions spent on the LHC? By finding a particle that we already assume exists?
War of Terror
There, fixed it for you.
"in less than 20 minutes, without compromising accuracy. Ordinarily, using the same system, this would take more than a day"
This just means that they were doing a pretty damn lousy job before they fixed the problem.
Isn't it also obvious that if you have a floating helium balloon inside your car, when you brake the balloon will move forward inside the car, or when you accelerate the balloon will be pushed back?
Isn't it also obvious that if your friend has three identical boxes with one of them containing a prize, you choose one box and he opens it revealing that the prize is not inside it and he tells you that you have one last chance to choose, then it doesn't matter if you keep your current choice or switch to the last remaining box, since it is 50/50 that the prize is in either?
You're eyes see 2D only anyway. You get two images, one on each retina, which your brain uses to interpret the scene as 3D. The utility of 3D glasses is that you can watch the scene from the same point of view irrespective of your location relative to the monitor/tv or cinema screen.
I see now, you're not trying to project only 2 images cloned into multiple slices, you're actually projecting the 3D scene itself where each slice has a unique image of the scene viewed from that angle. So instead of a camera with 2 focal points capturing what you should see with your left and right eye, you'd need a camera with a focal point per slice to capture what you would see at each eye position.
You're overlooking that adding more viewing angles doesn't change fact that you're only adding more sweet spots, with the requirement that your eyes must not be located in between sweet spots. Otherwise given sweet spots A and B, your right eye could be looking at the left eye version of sweet spot A, and your left eye could be looking at the right eye version sweet spot B.
So you still have to keep your head still and within the sweet spot otherwise you creep into an inverted 3D image. Only thing you're adding with extra directions is extra viewers, where each viewer is watching an effectively 2 direction monitor, and you're back where you started.
You'd need to be able to do eye tracking with directional projection if you want to expand the sweet spot, or, just use a pair of cheep circular polarized glasses.
Dude, good idea, I see a market developing for circular polarized contact lenses... I'll even be their first customer (after the rabbit trials of course).
I've seen tens of posts with devices and TVs promising true 3D without the glasses, and they're all bullshit vaporware. If you want true 3D you need glasses, period. There is no other way to effectively direct a different picture to each of your two retinas at the same time. If someone invents such a way you'll first hear about it in scientific publications, not on some bs device that no ones ever heard of. If a device claims to give true 3D without glasses, then it is either bs, or requires you to position your eyes in a very specific location at which point it would be better/easier to just use glasses anyway.
I've long ago stopped getting excited by such bs marketing stunts. Until they actually post something like "Directional pixels deliver photons to your eyes through eye-tracking camera" rather than the current "3D without glasses!!!!1111eleventyone".
This isn't an "incremental improvement" unless you consider the space shuttle an incremental improvement to a cart pulled by a donkey.
The space shuttle is being retired very soon, and cart pulled donkeys are still going strong in many parts of the world.
Meh, bing maps is super buggy (unusable) on chrome. If I need to use IE to run it, then screw it, back to google maps it is.
I don't understand, please use a car analogy.
F# for Scientists ... F# in the finance industry ... F# ... statistical machine learning algorithms ... solar system simulator
Just use Java with the JScience package.
How many atoms thick is a windshield crack?
I also love my programming work. I've only worked for scientists, professors, and in a small but experienced business run by a PhD, and they've all treated me like gold. They understand what intellectual work involves and how difficult it can be, and I get much praise. It's scary reading about the "managers" and the "big companies" that other people have had experience with, but in fun way, like watching a horror movie.
The ridiculous UIs in tv and movies help to disconnect me as a viewer from the hard work that other areas of the program/film applied to immerse me in the story. Such ghastly and unrealistic UIs are similar to terrible acting and unrealistic dialog. These days I just laugh at such UIs as I laughed at the acting and dialog of Team America, that is, I consider it a deliberate attempt at comedy.