Why would I want to ruin large parts of a good image with this effect? It seems just as stupid as adding a large lense flare.
For the same reason they use spotlight and shade in theatre shows, and floodlights on a sports field.
If you want a utilitarian document recording a place or event, such as a traffic cop taking a picture of a illegally parked car, then you can't do better than having every pixel in focus.
If you want something with artistic merit then you can use focus just as you can use light and shade to draw attention to one part of the image, and away from the background.
Depends what you mean by 3D modelling. Looking further at the article, it's a depth mapping technique for each pixel. Which is more analogous to DOOM than Quake. Remember those restrictions? No bridges in the map, no tables. Just a single height for the floor and a single height for the ceiling at any map position.
Those who weren't Apple fanbois mostly predicted the iPad to be nothing more than an oversized iPod Touch filling a small niche that could only cannibalize from Apple's existing portfolio.
Not quite. It was those that are active haters of Apple, or those who do click-bait blogs that said things like that. Most people without an axe to grind thought that Apple would probably be as successful with it's new tablet as it was with it's previous categories of smartphone and music player.
And those haters and click-bait bloggers were wrong.
This is different. I'm seeing the middle ground of non-fanboys and non-haters as being unconvinced by wearables. That's not the same as the iPad.
Samsung would swap places with Apple in a heartbeat if they could.
"Apple was particularly dominant, as it generated around $133 billion in profits, or just under 62% of the total. Samsung trailed far behind but still generated a healthy $56 billion in profits, or around 26% of the total." http://bgr.com/2014/03/18/appl...
If you think marketshare is more important to a company than profit, then you don't understand business. Samsung is doing well compared to most mobile phone manufacturers. But they are far behind Apple.
Well, apply it to any other area where FOIA applies and see if we can't get rid of the pesky FOIA altogether. But wait, we immediately find an application where we do NOT want to get rid of FOIA, so maybe the goal isn't worthy after all.
But you haven't. Your attempts at analogy have failed. It's just as true in those other areas that rooting through the trash is not only pointless but counter-productive.
There's nothing wrong with FOIA requests for data, and other things that FOIA covers. But this has been to court and those things that are covered by FOIA have been released and not those that don't. So you have no FOIA argument either.
"Albert Einstein's step-daughter Margot had stipulated in an agreement with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem dating from 1984 that letters in her possession, inherited from her step-father after his death in 1955 would be given to the Hebrew University but should be kept sealed and away from the public's eye for 20 years after her death. By the beginning of 1986 the material had arrived in Jerusalem. Margot had passed away a short time later, in July 1986. By July 8th, 2006 the 20-year period since her death had lapsed. Now the time had come to make the letters available to the public.
Since then, all of the material, spanning from 1914 to 1955, is available at the Albert Einstein Archives in Jerusalem for the interested public."
There was no forced publication of Einstein's letters during his life. His family chose when to publish and it was long after his death.
those very tos and fros of negotiating were slowly trickled out, leading to some of the most foundational Supreme Court rulings which have preserved our country's freedoms.
The Federalist papers were specifically written for publication, every bit as much as the constitution itself was. They too are parallel to the papers published in scientific journals. They are not an analogy for the forced publishing of work in progress that was never intended for public consumption.
"Police offers present their completed incident and arrest reports in court. There is no genuine reason for publicly releasing recordings of what the officers do whilst the incident and arrests were still in progress. Only in-genuine and dishonest reasons."
And indeed there is no such reason, even for police officers. Certainly having video surveillance of police officers is a welcome step forward. But these never will and never should be published on the internet in their entirety. Suppose the police come and arrest you and your wife early one morning whilst you were still in bed and they then do a search of your house. For a crime you didn't commit. Clearly that shouldn't be published on the internet for all to see. It would only add the injury of public viewing of private aspects of your life to the injury of being wrongly arrested and searched.
We can do these analogies all day if you like. If it's a true analogy, the result is the same.
The thought processes behind the research can often give insight to new data that arises later. Many of Einstein's theories would not be as well understood if not for his correspondence with other notable scientists of his day.
Funny you should mention that. Einstein's theory of relativity was also subject to these dirty tricks by right wingers.
Set a precedent of publishing emails between legislators and the result is they just move any such incriminating conversations to other media, or to face to face meetings. You ruin the use of a valuable communications medium fishing for something that's unlikely to be there anyway.
Yes, I agree. Just as I did with your last attempt at sarcasm. It's a pointless waste of time rooting through the detritus of the preparation of a project. Even when it's politicians.
You brought up 17 years. I just pointed out that even with your new period, the trend was not down, or flat, but up.
For sure for such a short period, noise is a problem and confidence intervals is more of a problem. That's why I've always said that the minimum period for climate is 30 years. In 24 years of discussing this I've always said 30 years is the minimum period of averaging for climate.
It's deniers that are pushing for short periods. Generally wanting to start in 1998. Because every more rational view of the trends is completely against them. Even allowing for confidence intervals.
Set a precedent of publishing emails between colleagues and the result is they just move any such incriminating conversations to other media, or to face to face meetings.
You ruin the use of a valuable communications medium fishing for something that's unlikely to be there anyway.
Compare and contrast the achievement of today's congress over the last few months with the achievement of the disparate representatives that drafted the US Constitution in 4 months at the Philadelphia convention.
The difference? With the lack of daily scrutiny from the news media and the resulting posturing from representatives, they could be more honest with each other about those things on which they stood firm, and those things on which they were negotiable.
The US constitution stands on it's own merits. The daily tos and fros of negotiating the thing over those 4 months are irrelevant.
Professionals need time to work collaboratively. To explore what might be wrong, as well as what's right before finally publishing the results of their labours. Intrusion into the process by the media, and even more so by those with malicious intent, to misrepresent things that never became part of the publication is only detrimental.
Public employees working for hire on public research paid for by the public should have no "proprietary" exemption to FOIA for papers related to the public work for hire.
It's not papers. Papers are available in scientific journals. This is an attempt to root in the trash looking for something to misrepresent.
Another question is about the scientific integrity here. If the data is true and supportive of his assertions, he should WANT to publish it.
What wasn't published? His work WAS published.
Show the papers and the data, unless of course you have something to hide.
Ah yes. The age old excuse of the surveillance state. Please post the web site where your own work emails are published, HighOrbit. Unless of course you have something to hide.
This wasn't a request to release research. This was a request to release emails between colleagues.
As was seen with the hacking into the East Anglia university mails, the objective of which is to find phrases to misrepresent.
Scientists publish their completed research in scientific journals. There is no genuine reason for publishing emails that were exchanged whilst the research was still in progress. Only in-genuine and dishonest reasons.
You know those electronic tags that they sometimes put around convicts on parole? They go around the ankle and track the movements of the convict, and phone back to base to report them.
The concept of a wristwatch powered by a Google OS reminds me of electronic tagging.
Very functional and attractive watches are available for 10s of dollars. What is it you are expecting an iWatch to do that would make it worth hundreds of dollars?
Samsung have managed to be successful with Android where other phone manufacturers have made losses on it. But it's having as little success with other Linux phone OSs as everyone else is.
They'd do best by sticking with Android. But maybe Google are making that increasingly difficult for them. It sucks not to be in control of your own OS.
I have personally found that there is not much difference between the two since they are both Word processors.
So any two apps that are in the same category are not much different?
As for poor UI's you should elaborate on that. If the UI does the job efficiently then what is the problem? What do you expect a "telepathic" or some other "magical" interface?:)
It looks like you don't consider UIs important. Or at least don't appreciate the ways in which one UI is better than another.
No, I'm not going to do a UI comparison here. It'd take some time to do it. And I think if you don't understand something about what makes one UI better than another I'd be wasting my time anyway.
Are you equally indiscriminating about two different code-bases that are supposed to do a similar thing. One well designed with proper separation of concerns and consistent approach, and the other a pile of spaghetti.
Yes I saw that. It seems to cover rather less manufacturers than CarPlay does. And also the article predates CarPlay, so many of those that were previously thinking of Linux may be going for Carplay instead of or in addition to.
However, I did a find web site which does publishes a comparison between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office 2013: https://wiki.documentfoundatio... Based on that comparison, I would have to say that Microsoft Office is actually inferior to LibreOffice.
In my post to which you reply I said "Is it that they make the mistake of thinking it's about feature lists?" And I'm afraid you've just illustrated exactly that mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would I want to ruin large parts of a good image with this effect? It seems just as stupid as adding a large lense flare.
For the same reason they use spotlight and shade in theatre shows, and floodlights on a sports field.
If you want a utilitarian document recording a place or event, such as a traffic cop taking a picture of a illegally parked car, then you can't do better than having every pixel in focus.
If you want something with artistic merit then you can use focus just as you can use light and shade to draw attention to one part of the image, and away from the background.
Depends what you mean by 3D modelling. Looking further at the article, it's a depth mapping technique for each pixel. Which is more analogous to DOOM than Quake. Remember those restrictions? No bridges in the map, no tables. Just a single height for the floor and a single height for the ceiling at any map position.
As the OP says it's 2.5D not 3D.
Those who weren't Apple fanbois mostly predicted the iPad to be nothing more than an oversized iPod Touch filling a small niche that could only cannibalize from Apple's existing portfolio.
Not quite. It was those that are active haters of Apple, or those who do click-bait blogs that said things like that. Most people without an axe to grind thought that Apple would probably be as successful with it's new tablet as it was with it's previous categories of smartphone and music player.
And those haters and click-bait bloggers were wrong.
This is different. I'm seeing the middle ground of non-fanboys and non-haters as being unconvinced by wearables. That's not the same as the iPad.
Samsung would swap places with Apple in a heartbeat if they could.
"Apple was particularly dominant, as it generated around $133 billion in profits, or just under 62% of the total. Samsung trailed far behind but still generated a healthy $56 billion in profits, or around 26% of the total."
http://bgr.com/2014/03/18/appl...
If you think marketshare is more important to a company than profit, then you don't understand business. Samsung is doing well compared to most mobile phone manufacturers. But they are far behind Apple.
Well, apply it to any other area where FOIA applies and see if we can't get rid of the pesky FOIA altogether. But wait, we immediately find an application where we do NOT want to get rid of FOIA, so maybe the goal isn't worthy after all.
But you haven't. Your attempts at analogy have failed. It's just as true in those other areas that rooting through the trash is not only pointless but counter-productive.
There's nothing wrong with FOIA requests for data, and other things that FOIA covers. But this has been to court and those things that are covered by FOIA have been released and not those that don't. So you have no FOIA argument either.
"Albert Einstein's step-daughter Margot had stipulated in an agreement with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem dating from 1984 that letters in her possession, inherited from her step-father after his death in 1955 would be given to the Hebrew University but should be kept sealed and away from the public's eye for 20 years after her death. By the beginning of 1986 the material had arrived in Jerusalem. Margot had passed away a short time later, in July 1986. By July 8th, 2006 the 20-year period since her death had lapsed. Now the time had come to make the letters available to the public.
Since then, all of the material, spanning from 1914 to 1955, is available at the Albert Einstein Archives in Jerusalem for the interested public."
There was no forced publication of Einstein's letters during his life. His family chose when to publish and it was long after his death.
Your analogy is falling so far off the mark it's funny.
http://www.albert-einstein.org...
Because you didn't have a mobile phone then and you do now?
those very tos and fros of negotiating were slowly trickled out, leading to some of the most foundational Supreme Court rulings which have preserved our country's freedoms.
The Federalist papers were specifically written for publication, every bit as much as the constitution itself was. They too are parallel to the papers published in scientific journals. They are not an analogy for the forced publishing of work in progress that was never intended for public consumption.
"Police offers present their completed incident and arrest reports in court. There is no genuine reason for publicly releasing recordings of what the officers do whilst the incident and arrests were still in progress. Only in-genuine and dishonest reasons."
And indeed there is no such reason, even for police officers. Certainly having video surveillance of police officers is a welcome step forward. But these never will and never should be published on the internet in their entirety. Suppose the police come and arrest you and your wife early one morning whilst you were still in bed and they then do a search of your house. For a crime you didn't commit. Clearly that shouldn't be published on the internet for all to see. It would only add the injury of public viewing of private aspects of your life to the injury of being wrongly arrested and searched.
We can do these analogies all day if you like. If it's a true analogy, the result is the same.
The thought processes behind the research can often give insight to new data that arises later. Many of Einstein's theories would not be as well understood if not for his correspondence with other notable scientists of his day.
Funny you should mention that. Einstein's theory of relativity was also subject to these dirty tricks by right wingers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
The right wing propagandists were just as wrong and just as dirty back then as they are now.
Set a precedent of publishing emails between legislators and the result is they just move any such incriminating conversations to other media, or to face to face meetings.
You ruin the use of a valuable communications medium fishing for something that's unlikely to be there anyway.
Yes, I agree. Just as I did with your last attempt at sarcasm. It's a pointless waste of time rooting through the detritus of the preparation of a project. Even when it's politicians.
You brought up 17 years. I just pointed out that even with your new period, the trend was not down, or flat, but up.
For sure for such a short period, noise is a problem and confidence intervals is more of a problem. That's why I've always said that the minimum period for climate is 30 years. In 24 years of discussing this I've always said 30 years is the minimum period of averaging for climate.
It's deniers that are pushing for short periods. Generally wanting to start in 1998. Because every more rational view of the trends is completely against them. Even allowing for confidence intervals.
Set a precedent of publishing emails between colleagues and the result is they just move any such incriminating conversations to other media, or to face to face meetings.
You ruin the use of a valuable communications medium fishing for something that's unlikely to be there anyway.
Indeed.
Compare and contrast the achievement of today's congress over the last few months with the achievement of the disparate representatives that drafted the US Constitution in 4 months at the Philadelphia convention.
The difference? With the lack of daily scrutiny from the news media and the resulting posturing from representatives, they could be more honest with each other about those things on which they stood firm, and those things on which they were negotiable.
The US constitution stands on it's own merits. The daily tos and fros of negotiating the thing over those 4 months are irrelevant.
Professionals need time to work collaboratively. To explore what might be wrong, as well as what's right before finally publishing the results of their labours. Intrusion into the process by the media, and even more so by those with malicious intent, to misrepresent things that never became part of the publication is only detrimental.
Public employees working for hire on public research paid for by the public should have no "proprietary" exemption to FOIA for papers related to the public work for hire.
It's not papers. Papers are available in scientific journals. This is an attempt to root in the trash looking for something to misrepresent.
Another question is about the scientific integrity here. If the data is true and supportive of his assertions, he should WANT to publish it.
What wasn't published? His work WAS published.
Show the papers and the data, unless of course you have something to hide.
Ah yes. The age old excuse of the surveillance state. Please post the web site where your own work emails are published, HighOrbit. Unless of course you have something to hide.
This wasn't a request to release research. This was a request to release emails between colleagues.
As was seen with the hacking into the East Anglia university mails, the objective of which is to find phrases to misrepresent.
Scientists publish their completed research in scientific journals. There is no genuine reason for publishing emails that were exchanged whilst the research was still in progress. Only in-genuine and dishonest reasons.
You know those electronic tags that they sometimes put around convicts on parole? They go around the ankle and track the movements of the convict, and phone back to base to report them.
The concept of a wristwatch powered by a Google OS reminds me of electronic tagging.
Very functional and attractive watches are available for 10s of dollars. What is it you are expecting an iWatch to do that would make it worth hundreds of dollars?
It's certainly broken.
http://gigaom.com/2014/01/17/m...
Samsung have managed to be successful with Android where other phone manufacturers have made losses on it. But it's having as little success with other Linux phone OSs as everyone else is.
They'd do best by sticking with Android. But maybe Google are making that increasingly difficult for them. It sucks not to be in control of your own OS.
The whole point of naturism is to avoid wearable anything.
He said he predicted failure for their SECOND tablet. Which was the iPad.
I have personally found that there is not much difference between the two since they are both Word processors.
So any two apps that are in the same category are not much different?
As for poor UI's you should elaborate on that. If the UI does the job efficiently then what is the problem? What do you expect a "telepathic" or some other "magical" interface? :)
It looks like you don't consider UIs important. Or at least don't appreciate the ways in which one UI is better than another.
No, I'm not going to do a UI comparison here. It'd take some time to do it. And I think if you don't understand something about what makes one UI better than another I'd be wasting my time anyway.
Are you equally indiscriminating about two different code-bases that are supposed to do a similar thing. One well designed with proper separation of concerns and consistent approach, and the other a pile of spaghetti.
What? If you can't use proper English, at least provide a link to whatever it is you are trying to say.
Yes I saw that. It seems to cover rather less manufacturers than CarPlay does. And also the article predates CarPlay, so many of those that were previously thinking of Linux may be going for Carplay instead of or in addition to.
However, I did a find web site which does publishes a comparison between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office 2013: https://wiki.documentfoundatio... Based on that comparison, I would have to say that Microsoft Office is actually inferior to LibreOffice.
In my post to which you reply I said "Is it that they make the mistake of thinking it's about feature lists?" And I'm afraid you've just illustrated exactly that mistake.