I'll probably get modded down but there are two important questions he should of asked before he died:
* ALL the Laws of Physics just "magically" emerged from where again? Or
* They have ALWAYS existed???
That is, WHY is the speed of light 299,792,458 m / s. Has it ALWAYS been this? If so, WHY? If not, WHY?
Either way, that requires no more, or any less, faith then your standard theist. Atheists LOVE to pretend that their F word is Faith -- but faith is NOT a dirty word -- only blind faith is. EVERYONE has Faith -- otherwise what sustains your beliefs in the first place???
Sadly Hawkins got caught up in the Fallacy of Duality:
* Atheist, noun, a spiritual blind man arguing color doesn't exist, * Theist, noun, a spiritual monochromatic man arguing that ONLY his color exists.
The fundamental problem is that Atheism is based on ignorance. i.e. I have no belief. Ergo, I have no knowledge. Great! How does this LACK of knowledge help you to live a better life??? How does it help you to have compassion for your fellow man or animal?
As a mystic I can say Hawkins was 100% wrong about The Source. He will find out just how ignorant he was about meta-reality when he realizes his consciousness is INDEPENDENT of his physical body -- which he could of learnt if he actually LISTENED to anyone who has had an OBE. Sadly, he COMPLETELY missed the point about religion. He should of ditched man-made religion and focused on transcendent spirituality instead.
i.e.
* Religion: one man preaching another what he SHOULD do to understand The Source, * Spirituality: one man teaching another what he COULD do to understand The Source.
Hawkins also should have stuck to Physics where he can PROVE his claims otherwise he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about W.R.T. Meta-Physics.
Scientist: Awesome work for making Science accessible to the public! Atheist: Doesn't have a fucking clue about meta-reality.
-- The ENTIRE reason you even exist is to learn HOW to have better relationships. There is nothing more important then them. Your character is the only thing you can take with you when you die.
> For mothers and mothers-in-law, I recommend mid-level color laser printers.
As someone who has BOTH a color laser printer and inkjet I'll second that.
Canon's color laser printer, the imageCLASS LBP612CDW at $184, is more then "good enough" for most people.
From 3+ feet away you probably can't tell the difference between an inkjet and color laser on "natural" images. (i.e. non test patterns.) But closer then 3 feet and you start to notice the flaws of color laser printers -- especially gradients that have artifacts. If you are printing portraits or HDR photography then the inkjet produces the superior quality -- no contest.
For 99% of people, yeah, they probably don't need their own inkjet but for the other 1% I wouldn't agree with that statement at all.
e.g. If you have a 10-bit/channel color monitor then you probably care about color consistency / correction across the entire pipeline. Especially with Canon's printers having 8, 10, and 12 ink systems now.
It all depends on the quality you want and at what price point.
> I have been told laser printers make inferior picture prints.
As someone who has BOTH a color laser printer and inkjet that is indeed TRUE.
* Laser printers are awesome for text but OK for photographs, * Inkjet printers are OK for text (slightly blurry) but phenomenal for portraits, and HDR photographs.
One of the many standard "litmus test images" are the ones listed on the defunct Outback Print
From 3+ feet away you can't tell the difference between an inkjet and color laser on "natural" images. (i.e. non test patterns.) But closer then 3 feet and you start to notice the flaws of color laser printers -- especially gradients that have artifacts. Not Mach Banding but error dot diffusion patterns due to the small size of toner color laser printers basically "print" in a halftone pattern.
> I doubt professional industry-grade printing firms print their photos on inkjet printers.
That's because they care more about cost then quality.
> see no reason why laser printer pigments would have to be inferior.
I take it you don't do much (any?) printing of HDR photos. Here is a primer (pardon the pun.)
First, color laser printers only have the standard 4 color CYMK toners. This means the gamut is not quite as large as inkjets's dyes and pigments.
Second, in Canon printers the large black "PGI" cartridge are pigments which is used when printing text. The remaining color tanks may be dye based inks which tend to have smaller particles than the pigment based inks. See Canon PGI vs CLI for more details.
Third, inkjets tend to have more dyes then just the standard 4 color CYMK inks. For example, the Canon Pixma PRO-1 is a 12 pigment system. Why 12?
5 are dedicated for black and white printing: * LGY (Light Gray) * GY (Grey) * DGY (Dark Grey) * MBK (Matte Black) * PBK (Photo Black)
Remaining 7 are for colors: * C (Cyan) * Y (Yellow) * M (Magenta) * R (Red) * PC (Photo Cyan) * PM (Phtoto Magenta) * CO (Chroma Optimizer)
If you want the best quality the type of printer inkjet vs color laser matters due to printing technology. i.e. For every day use a color laser printer is more then good enough but if you want quality portraits nothing beats an inkjet.
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
It is obvious you've never printed *any* HDR photography -- let alone portraits -- on both inkjets and color laser printers. The difference is substantial up close. Professional, and consumers, use ink jets to get the best quality for photos on premium photo paper such as 8, 10, and 12 ink systems.
i.e.
* Laser printers are awesome for text but OK for photographs such as their inability to produce artifact free gradients due to the toner when placed being basically fine dots on paper, * Inkjet printers are OK for text (slightly blurry) but phenomenal for photographs due to their higher gamut coverage and "area bleeding" producing smooth gradients.
Myself and others have both because you want to use the right tool for the job that gives the best quality.
As a casual board gamer + hard-core PC gamer I have to question just how popular he was as I've never heard of anyone mentioning him in ANY of my gaming circles.
/sarcasm Someone actually has a life and doesn't keep track of EVERY famous person in EVERY niche markets. *SHOCK*
I've heard of Gary Gygax (DnD), Steve Jackson (GURPS), Richard A. Bartle (Hearts, Clubs, Spades, Diamonds: Players who suit MUDs), Klaus Teuber (Settlers of Catan), etc. but never this guy.
Uh, without copyright there wouldn't even be a need for the GPL.
How does one even "pirate" the GPL ? That makes no sense. There only can be license violations -- such as NOT GIVING BACK (or trying to restrict other's freedoms.)
If people are pirating content then that shows that there is POTENTIAL interest.
I imagine that some people would rather have the entire content and judge it based on that instead of seeing a tiny sliver of a "preview" to judge whether it has value to them or not.
The rest of us can afford to buy it and/or have better morals. =P
The same thing W.R.T. computer games. Almost everyone pirated them when they were young -- but when they grew up and had a job they wanted to financially support the developers so that they could continue to make more games.
It's not really rocket science. The (non mutually exclusive) categories WHY people pirate are:
[ ] Can't afford it [ ] Content is not legally available [ ] I'm sticking it to "The man" [ ] It's free, man! [ ] Yes, I can afford it but I don't care [ ] I'm a hoarder [ ] Fuck the MPAA, RIAA , etc. for being greedy bastards Etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Go learn to have an OBE.
I'll probably get modded down but there are two important questions he should of asked before he died:
* ALL the Laws of Physics just "magically" emerged from where again? Or
* They have ALWAYS existed???
That is, WHY is the speed of light 299,792,458 m / s. Has it ALWAYS been this? If so, WHY? If not, WHY?
Either way, that requires no more, or any less, faith then your standard theist. Atheists LOVE to pretend that their F word is Faith -- but faith is NOT a dirty word -- only blind faith is. EVERYONE has Faith -- otherwise what sustains your beliefs in the first place???
Sadly Hawkins got caught up in the Fallacy of Duality:
* Atheist, noun, a spiritual blind man arguing color doesn't exist,
* Theist, noun, a spiritual monochromatic man arguing that ONLY his color exists.
The fundamental problem is that Atheism is based on ignorance. i.e. I have no belief. Ergo, I have no knowledge. Great! How does this LACK of knowledge help you to live a better life??? How does it help you to have compassion for your fellow man or animal?
As a mystic I can say Hawkins was 100% wrong about The Source. He will find out just how ignorant he was about meta-reality when he realizes his consciousness is INDEPENDENT of his physical body -- which he could of learnt if he actually LISTENED to anyone who has had an OBE. Sadly, he COMPLETELY missed the point about religion. He should of ditched man-made religion and focused on transcendent spirituality instead.
i.e.
* Religion: one man preaching another what he SHOULD do to understand The Source,
* Spirituality: one man teaching another what he COULD do to understand The Source.
Hawkins also should have stuck to Physics where he can PROVE his claims otherwise he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about W.R.T. Meta-Physics.
Scientist: Awesome work for making Science accessible to the public!
Atheist: Doesn't have a fucking clue about meta-reality.
--
The ENTIRE reason you even exist is to learn HOW to have better relationships.
There is nothing more important then them. Your character is the only thing you can take with you when you die.
Which is why I said ... :-)
> For mothers and mothers-in-law, I recommend mid-level color laser printers.
As someone who has BOTH a color laser printer and inkjet I'll second that.
Canon's color laser printer, the imageCLASS LBP612CDW at $184, is more then "good enough" for most people.
From 3+ feet away you probably can't tell the difference between an inkjet and color laser on "natural" images. (i.e. non test patterns.) But closer then 3 feet and you start to notice the flaws of color laser printers -- especially gradients that have artifacts. If you are printing portraits or HDR photography then the inkjet produces the superior quality -- no contest.
i.e. One of the many standard "litmus test images" are the ones listed on the defunct Outback Print such as this PrinterEvaluationImage_V002_aRGB.jpg
> NO REASON TO OWN A DAMNED DYE-BASED PRINTER
For 99% of people, yeah, they probably don't need their own inkjet but for the other 1% I wouldn't agree with that statement at all.
e.g. If you have a 10-bit/channel color monitor then you probably care about color consistency / correction across the entire pipeline. Especially with Canon's printers having 8, 10, and 12 ink systems now.
It all depends on the quality you want and at what price point.
> people are coming around on how worthless printers are now and what a price gouge they have always been
Indeed. It's pretty sad when it is cheaper to buy a brand new printer with included ink then to buy the "Official" ink refills. :-/
> I have been told laser printers make inferior picture prints.
As someone who has BOTH a color laser printer and inkjet that is indeed TRUE.
* Laser printers are awesome for text but OK for photographs,
* Inkjet printers are OK for text (slightly blurry) but phenomenal for portraits, and HDR photographs.
One of the many standard "litmus test images" are the ones listed on the defunct Outback Print
From 3+ feet away you can't tell the difference between an inkjet and color laser on "natural" images. (i.e. non test patterns.) But closer then 3 feet and you start to notice the flaws of color laser printers -- especially gradients that have artifacts. Not Mach Banding but error dot diffusion patterns due to the small size of toner color laser printers basically "print" in a halftone pattern.
> I doubt professional industry-grade printing firms print their photos on inkjet printers.
That's because they care more about cost then quality.
> see no reason why laser printer pigments would have to be inferior.
I take it you don't do much (any?) printing of HDR photos. Here is a primer (pardon the pun.)
First, color laser printers only have the standard 4 color CYMK toners. This means the gamut is not quite as large as inkjets's dyes and pigments.
Second, in Canon printers the large black "PGI" cartridge are pigments which is used when printing text. The remaining color tanks may be dye based inks which tend to have smaller particles than the pigment based inks. See Canon PGI vs CLI for more details.
Third, inkjets tend to have more dyes then just the standard 4 color CYMK inks. For example, the Canon Pixma PRO-1 is a 12 pigment system. Why 12?
5 are dedicated for black and white printing:
* LGY (Light Gray)
* GY (Grey)
* DGY (Dark Grey)
* MBK (Matte Black)
* PBK (Photo Black)
Remaining 7 are for colors:
* C (Cyan)
* Y (Yellow)
* M (Magenta)
* R (Red)
* PC (Photo Cyan)
* PM (Phtoto Magenta)
* CO (Chroma Optimizer)
If you want the best quality the type of printer inkjet vs color laser matters due to printing technology. i.e. For every day use a color laser printer is more then good enough but if you want quality portraits nothing beats an inkjet.
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
It is obvious you've never printed *any* HDR photography -- let alone portraits -- on both inkjets and color laser printers. The difference is substantial up close. Professional, and consumers, use ink jets to get the best quality for photos on premium photo paper such as 8, 10, and 12 ink systems.
i.e.
* Laser printers are awesome for text but OK for photographs such as their inability to produce artifact free gradients due to the toner when placed being basically fine dots on paper,
* Inkjet printers are OK for text (slightly blurry) but phenomenal for photographs due to their higher gamut coverage and "area bleeding" producing smooth gradients.
Myself and others have both because you want to use the right tool for the job that gives the best quality.
> VR is not like this. No one really uses it to solve a real problem, in any form.
Nonsense. VR is a niche learning tool.
Over fear of heights
High voltage training
> but it will never really go mainstream because it isn't solving a mainstream problem.
Yeah, I would agree with that.
As a casual board gamer + hard-core PC gamer I have to question just how popular he was as I've never heard of anyone mentioning him in ANY of my gaming circles.
I've heard of Gary Gygax (DnD), Steve Jackson (GURPS), Richard A. Bartle (Hearts, Clubs, Spades, Diamonds: Players who suit MUDs), Klaus Teuber (Settlers of Catan), etc. but never this guy.
What games did he work on?
A trillion frames at 1x1 is useless.
That said a super high frame rate like this is awesome.
What's the resolution though? I couldn't find it mentioned in the article.
What's next -- bringing a toaster to see how it impacts chefs and other markets?
*facepalm*
Is that any different from that old joke about politicians?
Q. How do you when a politician is lying?
A. When their lips are moving?
--
Main St. built America
Wall St. robbed it.
What's to happy about when stupid shit like this clogs up the news?
Mod topic: Slow news day.
/sarcasm If only there was a way to have multiple tabs and save links to our favorite sites ... oh wait ! :-)
> Two men will have 25% female children, 50% male children and 25% children with YY chromosomes
*facepalm*
XYY syndrome
XXY syndrome aka Klinefelter syndrome
Yup, And nothing of value was lost.
> willful ignorance and blind faith as very amoral. Science opposes those,
Science progresses one funeral at a time -- Max Planck
> Girl Licking Tits
Oh wait, did I say that out loud? :-)
Bluetooth uses more battery life then a headphone jack.
Hard to game when your phone is dead.
> Ethics is 100% relative, but it can be taught critically and in a scientific way.
Uh, Science is amoral by definition
Uh, without copyright there wouldn't even be a need for the GPL.
How does one even "pirate" the GPL ? That makes no sense. There only can be license violations -- such as NOT GIVING BACK (or trying to restrict other's freedoms.)
Indeed. Piracy from one POV == Free advertising.
If people are pirating content then that shows that there is POTENTIAL interest.
I imagine that some people would rather have the entire content and judge it based on that instead of seeing a tiny sliver of a "preview" to judge whether it has value to them or not.
The rest of us can afford to buy it and/or have better morals. =P
The same thing W.R.T. computer games. Almost everyone pirated them when they were young -- but when they grew up and had a job they wanted to financially support the developers so that they could continue to make more games.
It's not really rocket science. The (non mutually exclusive) categories WHY people pirate are:
[ ] Can't afford it
[ ] Content is not legally available
[ ] I'm sticking it to "The man"
[ ] It's free, man!
[ ] Yes, I can afford it but I don't care
[ ] I'm a hoarder
[ ] Fuck the MPAA, RIAA , etc. for being greedy bastards
Etc.
> but the upshot is every console game ever released still works on its respective hardware.
Bullshit.
How's that multiplayer working out for older games?
I.e.
* Halo 1
* Halo 2
* Phantasy Star Online
* OutRun Online Arcade
* Metroid Prime Hunters Online
ANY platform where the devs hold the servers "hostage" (you can't run your own) is in danger of not being available at some future date.
I.e. EA will eventually shut down BF3 multiplayer.
Stop misrepresenting the facts.