You appear to have missed the parent poster's point.
If the images for each eye are on different halves of the screen, then polarizing is pointless. It removes phantom images, but the phantoms are far away from the real image, so there's no advantage to doing so.
Actually, there's a huge effect in filtering out the "wrong" image from each eye. The eyes naturally focus much better on separate images if there are no clues that they are separate. That's why stereoscopic viewers have a divider between the two eyepieces for "parallel-eye" viewing (you can equally just place a sheet of paper, if your eyes can decouple well enough without extra optics). Note that images meant for parallel-eye viewing will look "inside-out" when viewed cross-eyed.
I'd claw my eyes out if I lived in the US and had to watch your crap channels.
Indeed. I live in the US, I don't own a TV (CNN and Faux News? No thanks). I get much of my news from the BBC's website. Government-controlled? Is that why Blair and Alistair Campbell and friends are so upset with them lately?
They used to have a word "mél" (for "message electronique"), which was officially encouraged in place of email, the trouble is nobody used it. Courriel however is widely used, though until now unofficial. They also have official words for "web" and (I think) "internet" but nobody uses those either. The trouble with "email" is that it (or rather, "émail") already means "enamel" in French.
Well, any analog medium = much worse loss. LPs and cassette tapes can't approach the dynamic range of a CD. Plus you get noise, which gets worse on repeated playback.
The only lossless music is a live performance.
But even then, you may crib about acoustics. Besides, you can't hire Brendel to play live for you whenever you feel like, and even if you could, he may not be in good form every day.
No they're not both right. I don't have any Hindi (Devanagari) or Gujarati font expertise to demonstrate this, but there are two forms of g, hard (gh) and soft (g), and two forms of d, hard (dh) and soft (d). Gandhi is a reasonably correct transliteration, and moreover is the one he himself used (don't forget he wrote extensively in English). Ghandi is wrong: the h after the g is wrong, no argument about that. (Tamil-speakers use a different convention about where to put an h, which I won't go into. But even then, Ghandi would be wrong.)
According to the link, it was made at the I2IT (international institute of information technology). I've never heard of it but perhaps that's why it's the dedication speech.
And as for Boeing, they have only one competitor in the passenger aircraft space, Airbus. India doesn't make its own, but the airline companies use both extensively. Recently there have been talks of large purchase orders from Airbus, which perhaps has the US worried.
How does a country where the per capita annual income is $390-$420 (depending on whose number you use) expect people other than the elite to afford mobile phone service, even if the handsets and service charges are heavily subsidized?
The article said they hoped for 6 million subscribers. The Indian "middle class" is around 300 million strong, and most of them can afford this. It's true that another 700 million live in comparative poverty, and a significant number in dire poverty, though.
P C W Davies has a small introductory textbook that was in my undergraduate library; it was very readable and very illuminating for a
beginner. It's little known, though the author is well known for his popular-science books.
A more advanced book, which also I recommend highly, is the one by Dicke and Wittke. These were my first books on QM (I was initially selftaught as an undergraduate, though I took regular courses later).
I also second the suggestions earlier of Sakurai and Feynman Lectures vol III. The latter is an unconventional introduction in that it starts directly with the Dirac bra-ket notation and Hilbert space, but that is really the way most physicists think about quantum mechanics after their first course, and the sooner you get used to it the better. For more advanced material, the Landau and Lifshitz book is one of the best.
On that subject, Dirac's original book on quantum mechanics is well worth reading too, though it's not thought of as a textbook.
Last I checked, Stallman doesn't even refer to it as Linux, but as Gnu/Linux.
No, he says Linux is the kernel, GNU/Linux is the complete system.
That said, they're not quoting Stallman here, but Larry McVoy, who in turn was quoted by Stallman (who used an indentation rather than a quote mark, for some reason).
I never pay for online entertainment, and it's all legal. I don't watch movies online. Music: check out etree. Books: check out Project Gutenberg. Games: check out nethack. Software: keep reading this site.
Most of my entertainment does come in the "real" world though, and does cost money.
Right now, on my FreeBSD laptop running XFree86 4.3, I'm using a driver (trident.o) compiled with linux's XFree86 4.2. I found video playback on the new driver was a bit erratic, so I copied the old one from my linux partition over to my freebsd partition, and it works perfectly.
I believe this is how XFree86 4 is meant to work: binary drivers stay compatible, even across different OS's (as long as it's the same platofrm). Yet in the interview there's a question "What about Debian"? Why wouldn't it work -- are there some specific problems with 3D acceleration etc? If the issue is RPM packaging -- well, I don't use Debian, but surely it can handle that -- heck even FreeBSD can.
Re:...Life of Brian for Easter of Course!
on
Easter Humor
·
· Score: 1
Oh yes, I forgot that one. Well lets say, Python at any time of year? (I'm even a recent convert to the python programming language.)
Obligatory python reference
on
Easter Humor
·
· Score: 1
In fact, the original BSD license allow for an invariant section to protect the owners name from being removed. This led to the "obnoxious advertising clause"
The advertising clause had nothing to do with copyright notices. It required that the copyright owner be acknowledged in advertising materials, a totally different issue. Removing a copyright owner's name from code they wrote not only violates the license (even without advertising clause), but is morally obnoxious.
The issue with text as I see it is that (a) I don't want to be credited with copyright for something I didn't write, (b) changelogs with copyright assignments for minor modifications become too cumbersome. I see nothing wrong in the invariant sections, and the GPL is a very good example why: no matter how you distribute the code, you must distribute the COPYING file absolutely without any modification, otherwise the purpose of the license is lost.
The author seems to think the death of the record industry "as we know it" would be a disaster.
As many people have pointed out, it's the big labels who are in pain: smaller labels aren't dying. When I lived in France, my favourite record shop was a boutique of a label called Harmonia Mundi. It wasn't cheap, but every CD I got there was impeccable. It didn't stock any of the major big labels.
Here's an article by Bernard Coutaz, founder of Harmonia Mundi, where he essentially calls for the death of the big companies who in his eyes are killing classical music:
It is imperative that recorded classical music finds its José Bové (white knight - José Bové is the French trade unionist farmer who played a major rôle in disrupting the world trade negotiations in Seattle last year)
(and, I may add, is notorious for his attacks on McDonald's in France - R) to denounce the dangers of globalization and profit.
Reading their page on security [openbsd.org] I get all kinds of unhelpful information like "OpenBSD believes in strong security" and "...we ship the operating system in a Secure by Default mode."
Did you read the "audit" section on that page?
Their explanations lack specifics.
For specifics, see the archives of the security-announce list and other sources mentioned in the "Watching our changes" section in the security page. Or their "press" page. Or even slashdot's BSD section: there are quite a few recent OpenBSD stories.
CIA world factbook shows "Indian rupee (INR)" as being India's currency?
Just as the currency in the US is the USD,
in the UK it's the GBP, in Switzerland it's the CHF. But not in daily life.
Re:I thought so.
on
Genome Surprise
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Worse and worse. Chromosome? We have 23 pairs of chromosomes, no more, no fewer. That's been known for ages now.
What was your point? That you're pontificating without even high-school knowledge on the subject? Well I suppose that's par for the course on slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
If the images for each eye are on different halves of the screen, then polarizing is pointless. It removes phantom images, but the phantoms are far away from the real image, so there's no advantage to doing so.
Actually, there's a huge effect in filtering out the "wrong" image from each eye. The eyes naturally focus much better on separate images if there are no clues that they are separate. That's why stereoscopic viewers have a divider between the two eyepieces for "parallel-eye" viewing (you can equally just place a sheet of paper, if your eyes can decouple well enough without extra optics). Note that images meant for parallel-eye viewing will look "inside-out" when viewed cross-eyed.
No, because your right eye is wearing a polarizer that blacks out the right half of the screen and lets it see only the left half. See figure 3.
Indeed. I live in the US, I don't own a TV (CNN and Faux News? No thanks). I get much of my news from the BBC's website. Government-controlled? Is that why Blair and Alistair Campbell and friends are so upset with them lately?
They used to have a word "mél" (for "message electronique"), which was officially encouraged in place of email, the trouble is nobody used it. Courriel however is widely used, though until now unofficial. They also have official words for "web" and (I think) "internet" but nobody uses those either. The trouble with "email" is that it (or rather, "émail") already means "enamel" in French.
Well, any analog medium = much worse loss. LPs and cassette tapes can't approach the dynamic range of a CD. Plus you get noise, which gets worse on repeated playback.
The only lossless music is a live performance. But even then, you may crib about acoustics. Besides, you can't hire Brendel to play live for you whenever you feel like, and even if you could, he may not be in good form every day.
No they're not both right. I don't have any Hindi (Devanagari) or Gujarati font expertise to demonstrate this, but there are two forms of g, hard (gh) and soft (g), and two forms of d, hard (dh) and soft (d). Gandhi is a reasonably correct transliteration, and moreover is the one he himself used (don't forget he wrote extensively in English). Ghandi is wrong: the h after the g is wrong, no argument about that.
(Tamil-speakers use a different convention about where to put an h, which I won't go into. But even then, Ghandi would be wrong.)
According to the link, it was made at the I2IT (international institute of information technology). I've never heard of it but perhaps that's why it's the dedication speech.
And as for Boeing, they have only one competitor in the passenger aircraft space, Airbus. India doesn't make its own, but the airline companies use both extensively. Recently there have been talks of large purchase orders from Airbus, which perhaps has the US worried.
How does a country where the per capita annual income is $390-$420 (depending on whose number you use) expect people other than the elite to afford mobile phone service, even if the handsets and service charges are heavily subsidized?
The article said they hoped for 6 million subscribers. The Indian "middle class" is around 300 million strong, and most of them can afford this. It's true that another 700 million live in comparative poverty, and a significant number in dire poverty, though.
Depends which country you live in. (I'm surprised nobody else has commented, it was a major case in the UK.)
A more advanced book, which also I recommend highly, is the one by Dicke and Wittke. These were my first books on QM (I was initially selftaught as an undergraduate, though I took regular courses later).
I also second the suggestions earlier of Sakurai and Feynman Lectures vol III. The latter is an unconventional introduction in that it starts directly with the Dirac bra-ket notation and Hilbert space, but that is really the way most physicists think about quantum mechanics after their first course, and the sooner you get used to it the better. For more advanced material, the Landau and Lifshitz book is one of the best.
On that subject, Dirac's original book on quantum mechanics is well worth reading too, though it's not thought of as a textbook.
Argh. Wrong link - McVoy's mail is here.
No, he says Linux is the kernel, GNU/Linux is the complete system.
That said, they're not quoting Stallman here, but Larry McVoy, who in turn was quoted by Stallman (who used an indentation rather than a quote mark, for some reason).
That should be "quantum" then.
Most of my entertainment does come in the "real" world though, and does cost money.
I believe this is how XFree86 4 is meant to work: binary drivers stay compatible, even across different OS's (as long as it's the same platofrm). Yet in the interview there's a question "What about Debian"? Why wouldn't it work -- are there some specific problems with 3D acceleration etc? If the issue is RPM packaging -- well, I don't use Debian, but surely it can handle that -- heck even FreeBSD can.
Oh yes, I forgot that one. Well lets say, Python at any time of year? (I'm even a recent convert to the python programming language.)
The deadliest rabbit ever (from Monty Python and the Holy Grail)
The advertising clause had nothing to do with copyright notices. It required that the copyright owner be acknowledged in advertising materials, a totally different issue. Removing a copyright owner's name from code they wrote not only violates the license (even without advertising clause), but is morally obnoxious.
The issue with text as I see it is that (a) I don't want to be credited with copyright for something I didn't write, (b) changelogs with copyright assignments for minor modifications become too cumbersome. I see nothing wrong in the invariant sections, and the GPL is a very good example why: no matter how you distribute the code, you must distribute the COPYING file absolutely without any modification, otherwise the purpose of the license is lost.
As many people have pointed out, it's the big labels who are in pain: smaller labels aren't dying. When I lived in France, my favourite record shop was a boutique of a label called Harmonia Mundi. It wasn't cheap, but every CD I got there was impeccable. It didn't stock any of the major big labels.
Here's an article by Bernard Coutaz, founder of Harmonia Mundi, where he essentially calls for the death of the big companies who in his eyes are killing classical music:
No they're not. The domain name www.firebirdsql.org is probably because www.firebird.org was already taken, or something.
Did you read the "audit" section on that page?
Their explanations lack specifics.
For specifics, see the archives of the security-announce list and other sources mentioned in the "Watching our changes" section in the security page. Or their "press" page. Or even slashdot's BSD section: there are quite a few recent OpenBSD stories.
Who is using it? Why are they using it?
See their users page.
Do you really need to be spoonfed all this?
That's why it's a google question.
This (somewhat out-of-date) paper may answer some of your questions.
Just as the currency in the US is the USD, in the UK it's the GBP, in Switzerland it's the CHF. But not in daily life.
What was your point? That you're pontificating without even high-school knowledge on the subject?
Well I suppose that's par for the course on slashdot.