whether you construct a verbose but ultimately incorrect denial or not
Comparing my post to yours, I think you may need to check the definition of 'verbose'. In any case, I'm too overwhelmed by the power of your, "I don't agree with you, therefore you are wrong," argument to take this any further.
If everything is in focus, then the public will most likely not even notice (unless they specifically check for this).
Camcorders with tiny lenses have close to infinite depth of field. Most video footage, including older news camera footage, is shot with a large if not very nearly infinite depth of field. Mashing all focal planes into one 'flattens' the picture, and despite the intention of making it look like a cartoon, I suspect it will just end up looking like cheap video.
Depth of field is a major part of what gives movies their 'cinematic' quality. The other most important part is probably motion blurring, where images are blurred in individual frames, but when displayed together in quick succession the eye/brain actually has an easier time stitching them together smoothly than if each frame is razor sharp. Both of these effects more closely simulate how human vision works, and can exploit that for artistic effect as the parent post points out. Cheap video tends to lose both of these - although the technology is changing fast. Other components of image quality are a factor - saturation, resolution, etc, but they tend to be less critical.
I don't think that's true. I saw a TV special about eight years ago demonstrating an infinite depth of field camera some inventor had created. The demo reels were amazing - it had a close-up shot of a caterpillar filling about half the screen, in focus of course, with a biplane flying in the distance, also in focus. I can't find it online. I wish I could remember the channel/program... Does anyone know the clip I'm talking about?
Look at the definition carefully: "for the purpose of helping or injuring..." I criticized 'propaganda' in the context in which it was used, which expressly indicated misinformation for destructive purposes only. That is why I used the examples of Al Gore (climate change) and Richard Dawkins (evolution). In each of these cases, the aim is to help the general public by presenting the facts - that is the 'slant and agenda'.
It would be just as nonsensical to call science, for example, 'propaganda' because it espouses a worldview based on demonstrable fact, since of course that 'injures' institutions that are based on fiction. It takes a real effort to construe 'propaganda' in those terms. As flattered as I am that you think I have the power to singlehandedly redefine words, I assure you that it is connotations themselves that define and redefine words over time, not me.
I feel badly that you're getting beaten up for a typo, but your real error was calling walmartwatch.com a propaganda site. Did you even look at it? Check their reports section and have a look at the actual research their doing. Obviously they have a slant and an agenda, but to call it propaganda is preposterous. You might as well call Al Gore's work on the climate crisis propaganda, or Dawkins's work on evolution propaganda. And that you got modded +5 insightful? That's +5 disgraceful for slashdotters.
Here's some 'stuff that matters' for you Wal-Mart is facing more than 100 class-action lawsuits from employees in dozens of cities around the country. Is Cost Co? Is GM? Is GE? Is Microsoft? How do you like that propaganda?
What's interesting is how each of the issues you address relate to human beings: productivity, competence, privacy, oversight, etc. When cabs start driving themselves a la 'Johnny Cab' in Total Recall and a hundred other sci-fi movies, these issues will all be moot. The point can be extended to encompass virtually every sector of the economy. The overall implications for robot automation are astounding. Fun to think about.
You raise a good point about HSV. I was going to mention that a passive display which only reflects ambient like is going to be aesthetically much more pleasing to the eye: it will be like looking at a magazine instead of a TV screen. HSV also points to a greater similarity to printed imagery.
I posted a comment to slashdot more than ten years ago about the potential of passive displays that only reflect ambient light, suggesting that there would be potential for display development. Glad to see my prognostication turned out to be true.
I've been looking forward to mainstream solid state drives for a long time. Especially in laptops, since the lack of moving parts presumably means no moving parts and therefore lower power consumption, longer battery life, better durability, and so on. It seems surprising that it's taken this long.
It's always hard to understand how intelligent, articulate, educated people can be right-of-center in terms of their values. Religion is almost always the explanation, being the card of unreason that trumps all other rationality. If you're not religious, then you're a genuine mystery to me. I'd love to hear some rational explanations for a right-of-center value system. They seem to be in very short supply.
It really isn't like Stellarium or Cellestia at all. Google Sky doesn't allow you to navigate in 3D as if you're traveling through the universe. It allows you to zoom in on certain parts of the sky as if you're looking at them through a telescope. And it's all real imagery, nothing is rendered. As fun as those other programs are, to me it is much more awe-inspiring to see the 'real' stuff. Google Sky has also done a pretty good job of mapping lots of objects in there, although their object search tool could use some work, considering that it is Google after all.
The fact that this is attached to Google Earth is really more of an interesting aside than anything else. Yes, it's handy to be able to know what view of the sky you'll have from a certain point on earth. But it's what's IN the sky that's so interesting - at least to me. I spent 30 seconds enjoying the "wow, this is what the sky will look like from my house" feature, and a couple of hours zooming in and out on objects in the sky itself. The charting of the moon and planet's paths through the zodiacal arc is pretty cool too, though the tool is slightly cumbersome and the animation could use some work.
For those of us who aren't following this issue very closely, would anyone care to explain why the obvious solution - a player that will play both formats - isn't feasible at the moment?
I find down-modding on Slashdot such a puzzling thing. Will someone please tell me who it is, exactly, who goes to the trouble of down-modding a post like the one above as 'overrated'? I honestly don't get it. It would be like crossing the street to tell someone that their joke you overheard wasn't that funny. Why would anyone bother? Who would bother?
I assure you, at no point in my adult life have I ever confused observable phenomena with theoretical frameworks. You are mincing words. If you care to descend into ontological bickering, all observations are themselves constrained by representations of reality: the resulting logic is circular. In practical terms, however, it is more sensible to use the term 'scientific fact' to describe both observable phenomena and theoretical frameworks for which there is an overwhelmingly large body of evidence. You will find that virtually all scientists, in practice, use the term in just such a fashion.
I'll be the first to admit I know very little about device states. But if some devices can be turned off and back on while the machine is running, why not all? And therefore, why can't they all be turned off and back on at the same time? Well, obviously they can because sleep/hibernate modes do work some of the time. So why not all of the time? Where is the problem? I'm not being rhetorical - I'd genuinely like to know. I've never understood why this is gives Windows such a problem.
Speaking of strawmen, your post is the same old regurgitated argument: viewing anything in science as an incontrovertible fact is as arrogantly fundamentalist as religion. Despite your long-winded litany about the self-critical nature of scientific inquiry, you seem to have just barely resisted saying that 'believing' scientific facts requires a kind of faith. That is nonsense. Read my post again.
The extent to which we accept something as a scientific fact is determined by the evidence. That's all there is to it. The fact that every scientific fact and theory is "one observation away from being disproven" is a self-evident tautology. 1+1=2 is "one observation away from being disproven." I refer you again to my last post: it is the evidence which determines the likelihood that a given proposition will turn out to be false. That's all that counts. The likelihood that evolutionary theory will be disproved by new observations is about as likely as 1+1=2 being disproved by new observations. That is not a gospel truth, it is a scientific fact. If you don't agree, you are either unaware of the facts (ignorant) or don't understand them (stupid). Take your pick.
I maintain my position that Vista is just a new XP skin. I've heard a lot of talk about how parts were rewritten from the ground up - networking especially. But I just don't see it. Very nearly all of the old problems are there. This guy mentions sleep modes. When has that NOT been a problem? What, exactly, is so difficult about dumping and reupping a memory state, I want to know?
This is not to say that Linux or OSX or anything else is perfect. The problem is that Vista was billed as 'all new' and 'rewritten from the ground up'. It wasn't. THAT is was sucks about it.
Regarding scientific theories, even ones that have "mountains" of evidence supporting them, is very dangerous. It's misleading and hampers progress. When that mental laziness is taught to children it's as bad as teaching them creationism as truth.
That hyperbolic apologist crap gets no traction with me, sorry. Anyone who paints evolution with the brush of uncertainty simply doesn't understand it, and to say that anyone who teaches evolution without qualifying it as an 'unproven' 'theory' is as bad as teaching creationism is not just nonsensical, it is despicable. It's the 'teach the controversy' garbage that is now the center of creationist political strategy.
We are as lucky to discover that 1+1=3 or that petunias have IQs of 195 as discover that evolution is wrong. Are you saying there is mental laziness in not teaching children that arithmetic is 'just a theory' and 'unproven' and 'could be wrong'? That failing to 'teach the controversy' about arithmetic is as bad as teaching creationism? That is what you imply.
Nothing in science is absolutely certain - that goes without saying, even for something as ridiculous as talking petunias. But the likelihood of something being wrong is entirely relevant to whether or not we term it a 'scientific fact'. Ask the biological sciences community what the likelihood of evolution turning out to be false is: very, very close to zero.
This is very similar to the atheism debate about God and the examples of the invisible pink unicorn, fairies, and the Flying Spaghetti Monter : the fact that you can't disprove something (i.e. God or any scientific theory) says nothing whatsoever about the likelihood that it is true (God, fairies, Flying Spaghetti Monster) or false (evolutionary theory, germ theory of disease, etc). The evidence is was counts in determining the likelihood that an assertion is true or false. You qualified the word 'mountains'. I've got bad news for you. Those mountains are all that matter.
You sound suspiciously like a creationist, since no one else could possibly seriously suggest that evolution in any ways suggests a bacterium parent could give birth to a mammal offspring. But I'll assume it's an honest question and just suggest that you check out talk.origins for many examples of evolution witnessed by scientists. For a more complete understanding of how evolution works in small incremental steps over enormous periods of time, you should read Richard Dawkins's "Climbing Mount Improbable." I mean no offense here, but you really can't have a conversation about evolution without reading such a book because you won't have any understanding of it at all. It would be like trying to have a conversation about the fall of the Roman Empire with someone when the only thing you've ever seen or read about the Roman Empire was the movie Gladiator.
By your definition, there are no scientific facts, there are only scientific observations supported by evidence. Irrespective of the terms used, the parent post basically said "evolution is a guess that no one is sure about," which is complete nonsense. Evolution is a scientific fact, as much as any thing in science can be factual: it is supported by a mountain of observable, measurable, testable, falsifiable, repeatable, coherent and self-consistent evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
Comparing my post to yours, I think you may need to check the definition of 'verbose'. In any case, I'm too overwhelmed by the power of your, "I don't agree with you, therefore you are wrong," argument to take this any further.
Camcorders with tiny lenses have close to infinite depth of field. Most video footage, including older news camera footage, is shot with a large if not very nearly infinite depth of field. Mashing all focal planes into one 'flattens' the picture, and despite the intention of making it look like a cartoon, I suspect it will just end up looking like cheap video.
Depth of field is a major part of what gives movies their 'cinematic' quality. The other most important part is probably motion blurring, where images are blurred in individual frames, but when displayed together in quick succession the eye/brain actually has an easier time stitching them together smoothly than if each frame is razor sharp. Both of these effects more closely simulate how human vision works, and can exploit that for artistic effect as the parent post points out. Cheap video tends to lose both of these - although the technology is changing fast. Other components of image quality are a factor - saturation, resolution, etc, but they tend to be less critical.
I don't think that's true. I saw a TV special about eight years ago demonstrating an infinite depth of field camera some inventor had created. The demo reels were amazing - it had a close-up shot of a caterpillar filling about half the screen, in focus of course, with a biplane flying in the distance, also in focus. I can't find it online. I wish I could remember the channel/program... Does anyone know the clip I'm talking about?
It would be just as nonsensical to call science, for example, 'propaganda' because it espouses a worldview based on demonstrable fact, since of course that 'injures' institutions that are based on fiction. It takes a real effort to construe 'propaganda' in those terms. As flattered as I am that you think I have the power to singlehandedly redefine words, I assure you that it is connotations themselves that define and redefine words over time, not me.
Here's some 'stuff that matters' for you Wal-Mart is facing more than 100 class-action lawsuits from employees in dozens of cities around the country. Is Cost Co? Is GM? Is GE? Is Microsoft? How do you like that propaganda?
Do us all a favor and do something about your ignorance before posting next time: http://walmartwatch.com/
What's interesting is how each of the issues you address relate to human beings: productivity, competence, privacy, oversight, etc. When cabs start driving themselves a la 'Johnny Cab' in Total Recall and a hundred other sci-fi movies, these issues will all be moot. The point can be extended to encompass virtually every sector of the economy. The overall implications for robot automation are astounding. Fun to think about.
I posted a comment to slashdot more than ten years ago about the potential of passive displays that only reflect ambient light, suggesting that there would be potential for display development. Glad to see my prognostication turned out to be true.
The simplest technique is the most effective, young grasshopper.
I've been looking forward to mainstream solid state drives for a long time. Especially in laptops, since the lack of moving parts presumably means no moving parts and therefore lower power consumption, longer battery life, better durability, and so on. It seems surprising that it's taken this long.
It's always hard to understand how intelligent, articulate, educated people can be right-of-center in terms of their values. Religion is almost always the explanation, being the card of unreason that trumps all other rationality. If you're not religious, then you're a genuine mystery to me. I'd love to hear some rational explanations for a right-of-center value system. They seem to be in very short supply.
The fact that this is attached to Google Earth is really more of an interesting aside than anything else. Yes, it's handy to be able to know what view of the sky you'll have from a certain point on earth. But it's what's IN the sky that's so interesting - at least to me. I spent 30 seconds enjoying the "wow, this is what the sky will look like from my house" feature, and a couple of hours zooming in and out on objects in the sky itself. The charting of the moon and planet's paths through the zodiacal arc is pretty cool too, though the tool is slightly cumbersome and the animation could use some work.
For those of us who aren't following this issue very closely, would anyone care to explain why the obvious solution - a player that will play both formats - isn't feasible at the moment?
Yup, just another busy day in the basement for them I guess.
I find down-modding on Slashdot such a puzzling thing. Will someone please tell me who it is, exactly, who goes to the trouble of down-modding a post like the one above as 'overrated'? I honestly don't get it. It would be like crossing the street to tell someone that their joke you overheard wasn't that funny. Why would anyone bother? Who would bother?
One shift two shift, red shift blue shift?
Visit talk.origins for dozens of examples.
I assure you, at no point in my adult life have I ever confused observable phenomena with theoretical frameworks. You are mincing words. If you care to descend into ontological bickering, all observations are themselves constrained by representations of reality: the resulting logic is circular. In practical terms, however, it is more sensible to use the term 'scientific fact' to describe both observable phenomena and theoretical frameworks for which there is an overwhelmingly large body of evidence. You will find that virtually all scientists, in practice, use the term in just such a fashion.
I'll be the first to admit I know very little about device states. But if some devices can be turned off and back on while the machine is running, why not all? And therefore, why can't they all be turned off and back on at the same time? Well, obviously they can because sleep/hibernate modes do work some of the time. So why not all of the time? Where is the problem? I'm not being rhetorical - I'd genuinely like to know. I've never understood why this is gives Windows such a problem.
The extent to which we accept something as a scientific fact is determined by the evidence. That's all there is to it. The fact that every scientific fact and theory is "one observation away from being disproven" is a self-evident tautology. 1+1=2 is "one observation away from being disproven." I refer you again to my last post: it is the evidence which determines the likelihood that a given proposition will turn out to be false. That's all that counts. The likelihood that evolutionary theory will be disproved by new observations is about as likely as 1+1=2 being disproved by new observations. That is not a gospel truth, it is a scientific fact. If you don't agree, you are either unaware of the facts (ignorant) or don't understand them (stupid). Take your pick.
This is not to say that Linux or OSX or anything else is perfect. The problem is that Vista was billed as 'all new' and 'rewritten from the ground up'. It wasn't. THAT is was sucks about it.
That hyperbolic apologist crap gets no traction with me, sorry. Anyone who paints evolution with the brush of uncertainty simply doesn't understand it, and to say that anyone who teaches evolution without qualifying it as an 'unproven' 'theory' is as bad as teaching creationism is not just nonsensical, it is despicable. It's the 'teach the controversy' garbage that is now the center of creationist political strategy.
We are as lucky to discover that 1+1=3 or that petunias have IQs of 195 as discover that evolution is wrong. Are you saying there is mental laziness in not teaching children that arithmetic is 'just a theory' and 'unproven' and 'could be wrong'? That failing to 'teach the controversy' about arithmetic is as bad as teaching creationism? That is what you imply.
Nothing in science is absolutely certain - that goes without saying, even for something as ridiculous as talking petunias. But the likelihood of something being wrong is entirely relevant to whether or not we term it a 'scientific fact'. Ask the biological sciences community what the likelihood of evolution turning out to be false is: very, very close to zero.
This is very similar to the atheism debate about God and the examples of the invisible pink unicorn, fairies, and the Flying Spaghetti Monter : the fact that you can't disprove something (i.e. God or any scientific theory) says nothing whatsoever about the likelihood that it is true (God, fairies, Flying Spaghetti Monster) or false (evolutionary theory, germ theory of disease, etc). The evidence is was counts in determining the likelihood that an assertion is true or false. You qualified the word 'mountains'. I've got bad news for you. Those mountains are all that matter.
You sound suspiciously like a creationist, since no one else could possibly seriously suggest that evolution in any ways suggests a bacterium parent could give birth to a mammal offspring. But I'll assume it's an honest question and just suggest that you check out talk.origins for many examples of evolution witnessed by scientists. For a more complete understanding of how evolution works in small incremental steps over enormous periods of time, you should read Richard Dawkins's "Climbing Mount Improbable." I mean no offense here, but you really can't have a conversation about evolution without reading such a book because you won't have any understanding of it at all. It would be like trying to have a conversation about the fall of the Roman Empire with someone when the only thing you've ever seen or read about the Roman Empire was the movie Gladiator.
By your definition, there are no scientific facts, there are only scientific observations supported by evidence. Irrespective of the terms used, the parent post basically said "evolution is a guess that no one is sure about," which is complete nonsense. Evolution is a scientific fact, as much as any thing in science can be factual: it is supported by a mountain of observable, measurable, testable, falsifiable, repeatable, coherent and self-consistent evidence.
I'll simply refer your foaming-at-the-mouth polemic to Dawkins, who owns you so hard on this issue it makes my unborn children cry.