From this point, you cannot apply commutativity of multiplication, of all things, to jump to your next step. You'll have to find some other way to break the axioms.
From matchlock, to airgun, to railgun?
on
Disney Goes Boom!
·
· Score: 1
Practically Perfect Pyrotechnics?
In practice, it's probably even more imperfect than it looks on paper. >_>
Now what they should really do is create railgun launchers for fireworks. Apparently the USA military is already in the process of developing missile launcher technology based on the electromagnetic railgun - an civilian applications would be both profitable and fun! >:)
-fs
most likely cause an inoperable brain tumor...
An inoperable brain tumor? Why would you even want to operate a brain tumor? Brain tumors don't even do anything (except grow really fast)... o_O
Actually, when I mentioned non-visible light, I was talking about fluorescent lights, which use a cathode-ray tube to excite the electrons of the substance in the tube - the line-emission spectrum of the substance is the different discrete wavelengths it emits when in a CRT. (Discrete because of quantum energy levels). Of course, incandescent bulbs (normal light bulbs) do use heat to excite electrons, but that is highly inefficient.
A good metaphor is this: a fluorescent bulb is like strumming all the strings on a harp - different substances are harps with different strings missing, so depending on the substance, you'll get a different "chord", or line-emission spectrum. Some of these are out of our hearing (read seeing) range. An incandescent bulb is like pounding on the side of the harp with your fist, hoping to get some sort of vibration, but it's a huge waste of energy. Finally, there's LED which is like playing a flute - you get one note only, but it still takes a substantial effort to play it. All in all, the LED is much more efficient than the other two. pr0ntab, you're right that LEDs do generate a lot of heat, but everything else is in visible light with a frequency of your choice. In an incandescent or a fluorescent, the rest is split between visible and invisible light.
A/C: Infrared radiation is not really heat, it just tends to cause heat because of its high rate of interaction with matter - other frequencies of radiation will often pass right through matter and not heat it at all. Hot matter will also emit infrared radiation. But heat is not the same as IR, because the first is particulate vibrations while the second is electromagnetic radiation.
Incandescent light bulbs, as we all know, are highly inefficient, emitting ~95% of their energy as heat. Fluorescent bulbs are much better, but still emit radiation in a line-emission spectrum far wider than that of visible light. As far as I know, LEDs are geared to one frequency, and are therefore very power-efficient. No matter how much it takes to manufacture something (within reason), if it is more efficient, it will pay off in the end.
That second one could work, but can lasers measure pressure fluctuations? I would think that air wouldn't reflect a laser, and if one measures the pressure by the speed of light through the medium (high pressure will slow it down slightly), you'd need a reflector of some sort...
Wow, that must have taken a lot of hard work to do. First you'd have to recognize the location of the lips in the images (they might not stand out that much, especially in a crowd scene), then find the region in which the lips are moving, then finally use the positions of the lips to extrapolate for the current shape of the inside of the person's mouth, and make a haphazard guess at the sound being produced. And you'd need to be able to recognize the lips from any angle whatsoever. Sounds near impossible to me... and besides, by the point at which the person is beyond the range of the audio pickup of a security camera (I'm assuming that's what this would be used for), it would also be beyond the point of bad resolution. (unless the target is in a crowd, in which case the lips would be obscured frequently by people moving around in front of the target).
Slashdot Mirror
To make this a bit more rigorous:
\infty = 0^{-1} [A20]
0^{-1] = 1*(0^{-1}) [A14]
1*(0^{-1}) = 1/0 [A17]
1/0 = 1/(-1*0) [T77]
From this point, you cannot apply commutativity of multiplication, of all things, to jump to your next step. You'll have to find some other way to break the axioms.
-fs
Sorry, but communicator - communist = cator-st :/
Practically Perfect Pyrotechnics? In practice, it's probably even more imperfect than it looks on paper. >_> Now what they should really do is create railgun launchers for fireworks. Apparently the USA military is already in the process of developing missile launcher technology based on the electromagnetic railgun - an civilian applications would be both profitable and fun! >:) -fs
most likely cause an inoperable brain tumor... An inoperable brain tumor? Why would you even want to operate a brain tumor? Brain tumors don't even do anything (except grow really fast)... o_O
Heh... well, at least they're ahead of the game... WineX 3.0 seems to emulate much newer programs than those of the Win3.0 days...
Nice one... ;)
Actually, when I mentioned non-visible light, I was talking about fluorescent lights, which use a cathode-ray tube to excite the electrons of the substance in the tube - the line-emission spectrum of the substance is the different discrete wavelengths it emits when in a CRT. (Discrete because of quantum energy levels). Of course, incandescent bulbs (normal light bulbs) do use heat to excite electrons, but that is highly inefficient.
A good metaphor is this: a fluorescent bulb is like strumming all the strings on a harp - different substances are harps with different strings missing, so depending on the substance, you'll get a different "chord", or line-emission spectrum. Some of these are out of our hearing (read seeing) range. An incandescent bulb is like pounding on the side of the harp with your fist, hoping to get some sort of vibration, but it's a huge waste of energy. Finally, there's LED which is like playing a flute - you get one note only, but it still takes a substantial effort to play it. All in all, the LED is much more efficient than the other two. pr0ntab, you're right that LEDs do generate a lot of heat, but everything else is in visible light with a frequency of your choice. In an incandescent or a fluorescent, the rest is split between visible and invisible light.
A/C: Infrared radiation is not really heat, it just tends to cause heat because of its high rate of interaction with matter - other frequencies of radiation will often pass right through matter and not heat it at all. Hot matter will also emit infrared radiation. But heat is not the same as IR, because the first is particulate vibrations while the second is electromagnetic radiation.
Impressive... ;:o (I'm an amateur coder and am fazed easily by complex-sounding projects)
Incandescent light bulbs, as we all know, are highly inefficient, emitting ~95% of their energy as heat. Fluorescent bulbs are much better, but still emit radiation in a line-emission spectrum far wider than that of visible light. As far as I know, LEDs are geared to one frequency, and are therefore very power-efficient. No matter how much it takes to manufacture something (within reason), if it is more efficient, it will pay off in the end.
That second one could work, but can lasers measure pressure fluctuations? I would think that air wouldn't reflect a laser, and if one measures the pressure by the speed of light through the medium (high pressure will slow it down slightly), you'd need a reflector of some sort...
Maybe it's time to develop a neo-Cockney...
Hey, and what about Chinese? Reading inflection would be near impossible, even if you looked at the person's voicebox (assuming it's visible).
Wow, that must have taken a lot of hard work to do. First you'd have to recognize the location of the lips in the images (they might not stand out that much, especially in a crowd scene), then find the region in which the lips are moving, then finally use the positions of the lips to extrapolate for the current shape of the inside of the person's mouth, and make a haphazard guess at the sound being produced. And you'd need to be able to recognize the lips from any angle whatsoever. Sounds near impossible to me... and besides, by the point at which the person is beyond the range of the audio pickup of a security camera (I'm assuming that's what this would be used for), it would also be beyond the point of bad resolution. (unless the target is in a crowd, in which case the lips would be obscured frequently by people moving around in front of the target).