Putting the RFID reader in a mile marker nearer the road (or in the road itself) and then relaying the information to the billboard via another, longer-distance technology, gets around the billboard-range problem.
So with RFID coins you just get the portable reader out and scan for the coins to find them,
I gotta tell ya, it'd be great for those guys selling consumer-grade metal detectors. Now you really can see how much money is in the ground before you dig it up!
Just think what it must be like in Los Angeles, where they have to card you just for buying milk lest it get in the hands of certain minors who allow it to go sour so that they can get intoxicated on it! Talk about a nanny-state legislative nightmare!
Because of company policy, and because the movie industry would take away some privileges if they didn't.
See, there's a rock and a hard place problem here. We don't want the ESRB's ratings be enforced by the law, but then we also don't really want to turn the ESRB into as corruptly powerful organization as is the MPAA.
Either you only want to track that person for a very short amount of time, or you're really interested in tracking the money itself.
I doubt this is intended as a coinage solution for Where's Willy, the Canadian currency form of Where's George. And the duration of the track of an individual depends on when the subject is expected to make another purchase. And it doesn't have to be very long to get useful, potentially compromising information, or just get the subject close enough to a reader wired to an explosive device.
Scarier is the thought that such RF trackers are just the test run, gathering distribution data to see what will happen when they replace the RFID chips with tiny samples of Polonium-210 or other more deadly toxins.
Sure, it was stupid of Slamdance to allow SCMRPG to enter only to disqualify them at the end.
"Allow"? They begged the author to submit the game! They actively solicited for its entry! They didn't have the balls to stand behind their own invitation!
And the pressure to disqualify only came after it made it as a finalist! The sponsor that was threatening to pull out was fine with it being in the competition so long as it was confident SCMRPG had no chance of winning!
A pity there aren't any reports of new groups coming forward to offer their sponsorship dollars on the condition that SCMRPG be reinstated to the competition.
Mr. Baxter issued statements months ago equivocating videogames to films in terms of importance and artistic potential.
I think that was meant to be "equating" not "equivocating".
An astute editor should have corrected it if it was not what was said, replaced it using square brackets to denote a substitution, or otherwise noted the error. As it stands, it isn't clear whether it is the interviewer's error or the interviewee trying to importantalize his statementarisms by inflaterizing his syllabilical count.
Just think how much of that gets lost for typical 10% title-safe regions. That's practically the equivalent of 32 SD DVD images worth of screen real-estate thrown out for overscan estimation! (You could fit 8 720x540 full-screen images on each of the left and right sides and another 8 720x432 letterboxed images each above and below!)
If you assume no overscan loss, that's 16 1920x1080 HD images in a 4x4 grid.
"OK, I want channels 18, 24, 63, 109, 87 and the Weather Channel." "Watching a little TV for a change?"
There will always be a market for a display capable of displaying more than two 1080p images at once at full resolution. A nonlinear editing station for HD video is an obvious one (if not already using multiple >HD displays).
To watch it faster, we'd just have to launch a camera in that direction, if it were fast enough it could reduce the time increasingly that it took the light to reach the camera.
Unfortunately, even if this could be done, getting the video back to you here would be difficult.
Yeah, seeing as if it were to transmit what it was seeing in real time to us, due to doppler shift it would arrive at the same time that we could have observed it ourselves, the only benefit to us being the closer viewpoint.
If instead it had to return the time-lapse footage to us, it would take even longer for it to make the return flight than the light would have taken.
So for you to see it take place faster and earlier, you'd have to go with the camera, but with no one to share your advance knowledge with that didn't go with you.
This is not an argument to hurl the whole planet in the direction of this event.
Given space being infinite, shouldn't there be something out there somewhere that got destroyed and is just reaching us now?
Except it may be too far away too see clearly and you'd need to be looking at the right place in all of infinity at the right time with the right equipment.
But don't let that stop you from looking up at the night sky with your friends and going, "Oooh!" and "Aaah!" and "That was a big one!" like you're watching a fireworks display!
So an atheist could accept a proof of god (and presumably cease to be an atheist as a result) whereas an agnostic would deny the existence of such a proof?
Meanwhile even theists would cease to be theists in face of a proof for god, becoming... what? Knowists?
Anyway, I say foo to all this saying they were toppled 6,000 years ago. For the purposes of causality it hasn't happened yet for us, and won't for another thousand years. It cannot affect us until then. They just don't want to say that they're predicting that it will have happened 6,000 years ago.
DRM methods can also be patented, but they tend to be trade secrets instead because patenting requires disclosure. An analogous DRM for a physical object would then be something that cannot be readily sampled or replicated without a trade secret process or proprietary material, yet is essential for the function or construction of the final object.
But I don't think a patent can withhold such a piece of vital information, so the object isn't patented, but replication is an unsolved problem due to a trade secret manufacturing method or unobtainable material.
E.g. Coca-Cola's use of a tightly regulated non-addictive extract from the coca plant is a DRM on the ability to replicate Coca-Cola. Their full formula is also not patented but rather a trade secret.
Indeed. Having my Apple 21" Studio Display suddenly become unusable (image is pinched widthwise to the middle 1/4" of the screen, and what a task to just get it legible) I've found myself suddenly in need of a replacement display. I figured (along with others) that since the standalone iSight was discontinued, new displays with it built-in would become available. Not that I desire an iSight; I'd just rather not pay too much for a product about to be replaced.
Maybe it will be introduced later this week and it wasn't seen as important enough to mention at the keynote, but I haven't seen any show up at the store. Now I'm leaning toward ordering a new 21" VGA CRT capable of 2048x1536 for under $500 that I can share between four computers via my existing KVM switch rather than spend $2000 on a dual-link DVI from Apple (or under $1500 from Dell) that I could only use on my Mac Pro. (I'm not looking to upgrade video cards in my older Macs.)
2048x1536 is sufficiently greater than HD for my needs.
Or just an augmented reality display. Picture yourself moving it around like it's the Polaroid from The Lost Room. It's going to have to have GPS in it anyway for E911.
I wonder if it is too late to get it in for product placement in 24.
Internet Explorer's default is to run a search from the address bar. If you type in ANYTHING that isn't a fully qualified web address that includes the "http" at the front it will do a search. For example if you type "www.google.com it does a search on it instead of just trying to parse it as a web address.
Who does the 'search'? Microsoft.
Well then, I'm glad I have always specified the protocol in all hand-typed URLs, despite how silly others have said it to be.
Of course, the only URLs I have ever hand-typed into Internet Explorer have been to download an alternative browser.
Slashdot Mirror
Putting the RFID reader in a mile marker nearer the road (or in the road itself) and then relaying the information to the billboard via another, longer-distance technology, gets around the billboard-range problem.
Costs Ridiculous Money
Aaah! It's crushing my head! It's crushing my head!
I just hope it doesn't become Insightful!
So with RFID coins you just get the portable reader out and scan for the coins to find them,
I gotta tell ya, it'd be great for those guys selling consumer-grade metal detectors. Now you really can see how much money is in the ground before you dig it up!
Just think what it must be like in Los Angeles, where they have to card you just for buying milk lest it get in the hands of certain minors who allow it to go sour so that they can get intoxicated on it! Talk about a nanny-state legislative nightmare!
Because of company policy, and because the movie industry would take away some privileges if they didn't.
See, there's a rock and a hard place problem here. We don't want the ESRB's ratings be enforced by the law, but then we also don't really want to turn the ESRB into as corruptly powerful organization as is the MPAA.
This will be tossed on the junk heap with all the others.
I hope so, but then I also look forward to it lasting just long enough to be ridiculed in an episode of Boston Legal.
So, word to the wise: only solicit the Exact-Change-Only prostitutes. (You have no idea where that toonie's been!)
Either you only want to track that person for a very short amount of time, or you're really interested in tracking the money itself.
I doubt this is intended as a coinage solution for Where's Willy, the Canadian currency form of Where's George. And the duration of the track of an individual depends on when the subject is expected to make another purchase. And it doesn't have to be very long to get useful, potentially compromising information, or just get the subject close enough to a reader wired to an explosive device.
Scarier is the thought that such RF trackers are just the test run, gathering distribution data to see what will happen when they replace the RFID chips with tiny samples of Polonium-210 or other more deadly toxins.
Sure, it was stupid of Slamdance to allow SCMRPG to enter only to disqualify them at the end.
"Allow"? They begged the author to submit the game! They actively solicited for its entry! They didn't have the balls to stand behind their own invitation!
And the pressure to disqualify only came after it made it as a finalist! The sponsor that was threatening to pull out was fine with it being in the competition so long as it was confident SCMRPG had no chance of winning!
A pity there aren't any reports of new groups coming forward to offer their sponsorship dollars on the condition that SCMRPG be reinstated to the competition.
I think that was meant to be "equating" not "equivocating".
An astute editor should have corrected it if it was not what was said, replaced it using square brackets to denote a substitution, or otherwise noted the error. As it stands, it isn't clear whether it is the interviewer's error or the interviewee trying to importantalize his statementarisms by inflaterizing his syllabilical count.
Resolution: 7,680 × 4,320 pixels (16:9) (approximately 33 megapixels)
Just think how much of that gets lost for typical 10% title-safe regions. That's practically the equivalent of 32 SD DVD images worth of screen real-estate thrown out for overscan estimation! (You could fit 8 720x540 full-screen images on each of the left and right sides and another 8 720x432 letterboxed images each above and below!)
If you assume no overscan loss, that's 16 1920x1080 HD images in a 4x4 grid.
"OK, I want channels 18, 24, 63, 109, 87 and the Weather Channel."
"Watching a little TV for a change?"
There will always be a market for a display capable of displaying more than two 1080p images at once at full resolution. A nonlinear editing station for HD video is an obvious one (if not already using multiple >HD displays).
If instead it had to return the time-lapse footage to us, it would take even longer for it to make the return flight than the light would have taken.
So for you to see it take place faster and earlier, you'd have to go with the camera, but with no one to share your advance knowledge with that didn't go with you.
This is not an argument to hurl the whole planet in the direction of this event.
Except it may be too far away too see clearly and you'd need to be looking at the right place in all of infinity at the right time with the right equipment.
But don't let that stop you from looking up at the night sky with your friends and going, "Oooh!" and "Aaah!" and "That was a big one!" like you're watching a fireworks display!
0.15 G is customary.
So an atheist could accept a proof of god (and presumably cease to be an atheist as a result) whereas an agnostic would deny the existence of such a proof?
Meanwhile even theists would cease to be theists in face of a proof for god, becoming... what? Knowists?
Anyway, I say foo to all this saying they were toppled 6,000 years ago. For the purposes of causality it hasn't happened yet for us, and won't for another thousand years. It cannot affect us until then. They just don't want to say that they're predicting that it will have happened 6,000 years ago.
DRM methods can also be patented, but they tend to be trade secrets instead because patenting requires disclosure. An analogous DRM for a physical object would then be something that cannot be readily sampled or replicated without a trade secret process or proprietary material, yet is essential for the function or construction of the final object.
But I don't think a patent can withhold such a piece of vital information, so the object isn't patented, but replication is an unsolved problem due to a trade secret manufacturing method or unobtainable material.
E.g. Coca-Cola's use of a tightly regulated non-addictive extract from the coca plant is a DRM on the ability to replicate Coca-Cola. Their full formula is also not patented but rather a trade secret.
I can only wonder what the phone of 2020 will do.
I could tell you, but then I'd have to prevent your conception.
Indeed. Having my Apple 21" Studio Display suddenly become unusable (image is pinched widthwise to the middle 1/4" of the screen, and what a task to just get it legible) I've found myself suddenly in need of a replacement display. I figured (along with others) that since the standalone iSight was discontinued, new displays with it built-in would become available. Not that I desire an iSight; I'd just rather not pay too much for a product about to be replaced.
Maybe it will be introduced later this week and it wasn't seen as important enough to mention at the keynote, but I haven't seen any show up at the store. Now I'm leaning toward ordering a new 21" VGA CRT capable of 2048x1536 for under $500 that I can share between four computers via my existing KVM switch rather than spend $2000 on a dual-link DVI from Apple (or under $1500 from Dell) that I could only use on my Mac Pro. (I'm not looking to upgrade video cards in my older Macs.)
2048x1536 is sufficiently greater than HD for my needs.
Or just an augmented reality display. Picture yourself moving it around like it's the Polaroid from The Lost Room . It's going to have to have GPS in it anyway for E911.
I wonder if it is too late to get it in for product placement in 24.
I can see me letting my fingers do the running. It'd be a snap!
And just because your Aunt Sally doesn't want to receive spam about vitamins doesn't mean she wants to miss her weekly Bingo e-mails.
Well then, I'm glad I have always specified the protocol in all hand-typed URLs, despite how silly others have said it to be.
Of course, the only URLs I have ever hand-typed into Internet Explorer have been to download an alternative browser.