You DO realize that both sides, Democrats AND Republicans, dislike movies, right?
/sarcasm Because the political leanings of the viewer determine if a movie is good or not -- and not the script, director, execution, pacing, editing, etc.
I hear you. I have a friend who keeps dragging me to the theaters. I go because they value it, but I hate the movie experience compared to my home theater.
I'd rather sit at home being able to drink what I want, pause the movie, adjust the volume, rewind, be guaranteed to get the best seat, turn on/off CC, and go the bathroom on my terms, instead of paying for an over-priced ticket.
Considering all 704 movies that were in theaters in 2017, there is less than 21 / 704 = 2.9% of that crap that I'd even want to see once.
i.e. You know Hollywood is doing something wrong when you would rather watch a 5 hour analysis of why Stupid Wars: The Latest Junk sucked, then the movie itself.
The danger is that it might become a slippery slope:
1. Only the rich will be able to afford,
2. It could lead to reverse discrimination and job profiling,
i.e. I'm sorry, your Johnny wasn't born with _X_, he isn't allowed to do _Y_
3. Loss of genetic diversity.
Show me ANY tech that man hasn't abused the fuck out? And while that isn't reason enough we need to proceed with caution instead a naive "full steam ahead".
Since the nausea is caused by the mixed messages the eyes (you are moving!) and inner ear (no you aren't!) are sending to the brain, can it ever be solved?
One of my best friend gets nausea from playing FPSs on a PC. I told her to push the monitor back so her eyes could see more of a "stable" image, the wall behind the monitor. While it didn't completely solve the problem, it definitely helped.
The nausea of "cheap" VR is not exactly a great selling point. Play this game on our VR and get sea-sick for free!/s
> A space MMO based on this data and the exoplanet data would be insanely awesome.
Yes and no.
There are multiple problems.
The #1 problem, as said famously by Douglas Adam, is: Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.
Unless you give players:
* FTL (Faster then Light) / Warp Speed,and * Multiple reasons to navigate around the galaxy
Exploration alone is pretty boring. One of the primary reasons EVE Online has lasted so long because of POS - Player Owned Structures/Stations, such as Starbases and Citadels
The #2 problem is: What does progression look like? i.e. What is the end game? What do players _actually_ do that will keep them interested?
If you search for how scientifically accurate is elite dangerous you will come find that Elite:Dangerous already has part of its star map based on real star systems:
Space.com: What's unique about Elite: Dangerous' Stellar Forge?
David Braben: Everything we've got in the game is real. We've got some 160,000 star systems that are from star catalogs, and the rest are created using sophisticated algorithms...
We've got around 1,000 systems [in the game] discovered each minute by real people, where no one has ever been before. People can equip their ship and just head out into the unknown. But that's still 0.001 percent of the galaxy that has been discovered in the year since we went live.
Elite:Dangerous even "loosely" predicted the Trappist-1 sytem.
You may also be interested in:
* Orbiter * Space Simulator * Kerbal space program
I haven't played those so can't confirm their accuracy.
I posted screenshots and descriptions of what has changed. To the untrained eye changes would probably seem subtle -- but the changes stick out like a sore thumb to me.
> Why is this slight graphics refresh a news story?
Reasons.
/sarcasm Because it is the latest shiny from Apple / Google / Microsoft / etc.
2. Click on the first menu choiceTry the new Gmail If you don't see "Try the new Gmail" menu choice -- it hasn't been rolled out to your account (yet).
3. Select the layoutDefault, Comfortable, Compact Don't worry if you picked the wrong choice. You can click on gear icon in the top right and the non-descriptDisplay density to choose between the three.
Thankfully we can Go back to classic Gmail for now -- until Google rams it down our throats, whether we want it or not.
Since the bloody article can't even show the visual differences here are screenshots comparing the old and new:
* The left column/sidebar of Inbox, Important, Sent Mail, etc. is wider. Number of unread are now in their own sub-column instead of immediately after the Folder name.
* Tabs (Primary, Social, Promotions, Updates, Forums) no longer have a vertical line separating them. You HAVE to mouse over them to see where each button ends.
* The 2nd column which showed the Senders and the number of emails in a thread no longer shows (#) but just the # number by itself making this harder to read.
Almost instantly reverted. The new UI wastes so much screen space -- and I'm running in compact mode (in both Classicy and New modes)
* Tabs (Primary, Social, Promotions, Updates, Forums) no longer have a vertical line separating them. You HAVE to mouse over them to see where each button ends. * The left column of Inbox, Important, Sent Mail, etc. is wider. * The 2nd column which showed the Senders and the number of emails in a thread no longer shows (#) but just the # number by itself. * The middle columns are now less wide * A new right column which shows vertical icons of Calendar, Keep, Tasks now wastes space * The number of lines in the Inbox is now less due to the spacing between threads being increased.
> But the human eye has its limits too. What's the actual N, beyond which we, the humans -- even those with the sharpest eyes -- can no longer distinguish between N and 2N pixels per inch?
The TL:DR; version is: Use a 4K distance calculator
The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail. We also have two eyes, and our brains combine the signals to increase the resolution further. We also typically move our eyes around the scene to gather more information. Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina. So the megapixel equivalent numbers below refer to the spatial detail in an image that would be required to show what the human eye could see when you view a scene.
But if we do the math...
Based on the above data for the resolution of the human eye, let's try a "small" example first. Consider a view in front of you that is 90 degrees by 90 degrees, like looking through an open window at a scene. The number of pixels would be
At any one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want. But the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see
So this is how it is. If a healthy adult brings any display screen or printed paper or whatever 4 inches (100 mm) from his or her face, the maximum resolution he/she can see at is 2190 ppi/dpi. It doesn't get any better than this for 99.99% of us, except maybe during pre-kindergarten years.
But the legally accepted norm of 20/20 vision only asks for 876 ppi/dpi at 4 inches!
But since we don't view things from 4 inches away...
Cinema The width of a cinema screen can vary from 30 to 70 feet (360' to 840', 9144 mm to 21,336 mm). The closest viewing distance recommended is about 40 feet (3x height) -- 12,192 mm. If one is projecting 2K on these screens, the ppi is about 2.4 ppi to 5.7 ppi. If one is projecting 4K, it is about 5 ppi to 11.4 ppi.
Is this what the eye needs?
p@0.4 works out to be 1.4 mm or 18 ppi. p@1 works out to be 3.5 mm or 7 ppi.
As you can see, 4K comes very close to what the human eye can fully resolve in a cinema screen at average viewing distances. Obviously, many people sit in the front row, and they'd definitely appreciate higher resolution. Which is why we are moving towards:
8K and UHDTV
A 30 to 70 feet screen at 8K (8192 horizontal) gives me from 9.75 ppi to 22.8 ppi. This resolution beats what the eye can resolve at these distances. The future belongs to 8K.
But, to get 18 ppi (the best possible resolution) for a 70 feet screen, we'll need a horizontal resolution of 15120 or 16K. This is about 128 Megapixels. Is anybody working on this?
/sarcasm You just need to wait a few more years when the UI from ~2000 will be in vogue again and will be pimped as the latest shiny.
While we are waiting can we also kill "endless scrolling" where a user has NO clue how far (vertically) they are along the (page) content? There is a reason scrollbars have a thumb knob.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. :-/
Copyright holds culture hostage is, sadly, what this has become.
> for financial gain.
You keep using those words -- it doesn't mean what you think it means.
By selling the CDs EACH for $0.25 ???
$0.25 was basically to cover the cost of operations.
Did he break:
* The letter of the Law? Yes
* The spirit of the Law? No.
But let's keep being focused on the tree and missing the complete fucking FOREST -- all those computers that could be SALVAGED.
Ad hominem fallacy much?
You DO realize that both sides, Democrats AND Republicans, dislike movies, right?
+1 Funny
Moderator's sense of humor is busted and needs to have sarcasm explicitly spelt out.
I hear you. I have a friend who keeps dragging me to the theaters. I go because they value it, but I hate the movie experience compared to my home theater.
I'd rather sit at home being able to drink what I want, pause the movie, adjust the volume, rewind, be guaranteed to get the best seat, turn on/off CC, and go the bathroom on my terms, instead of paying for an over-priced ticket.
Considering all 704 movies that were in theaters in 2017, there is less than 21 / 704 = 2.9% of that crap that I'd even want to see once.
i.e.
You know Hollywood is doing something wrong when you would rather watch a 5 hour analysis of why Stupid Wars: The Latest Junk sucked, then the movie itself.
A few days agao Amazon and Microsoft were neck and neck:
Considering
* back in Feb. 2018 that Amazon's market cap was at $702.5 billion compared to Microsoft's at $699.2 billion (beating MS for the first time),
* but in March 2018 Amazon was at $684.3 billion compared to Microsoft's $692.4 billion ...
Go watch GATTACA, or the Star Trek episodes that talk about Eugenics Wars, specifically Doctor Bashir, I Presume IIRC.
The danger is that it might become a slippery slope:
1. Only the rich will be able to afford,
2. It could lead to reverse discrimination and job profiling,
i.e. I'm sorry, your Johnny wasn't born with _X_, he isn't allowed to do _Y_
3. Loss of genetic diversity.
Show me ANY tech that man hasn't abused the fuck out? And while that isn't reason enough we need to proceed with caution instead a naive "full steam ahead".
Go read Eugenics for more details.
Since the nausea is caused by the mixed messages the eyes (you are moving!) and inner ear (no you aren't!) are sending to the brain, can it ever be solved?
One of my best friend gets nausea from playing FPSs on a PC. I told her to push the monitor back so her eyes could see more of a "stable" image, the wall behind the monitor. While it didn't completely solve the problem, it definitely helped.
The nausea of "cheap" VR is not exactly a great selling point. Play this game on our VR and get sea-sick for free! /s
Marketing speak for "damage control".
> we can already see the trolls crawling out with their complaints about privacy, breakage, licensing, and other such crap.
Ad Hominem much?
So you are offering to fix things when MS breaks it?
Just because _you_ aren't running into valid issues, doesn't mean no else is. But keep trying to paint everyone with the same brush.
The other problem is that we CAN'T opt-out of whatever MS shoves down our throats unless we stick with older OS's that actually respect our privacy.
> Yes, that means updating.
The problem is MS has a HORRIBLE track record. Chances are 50/50 ,or whatever the % is, that something will break.
By NOT upgrading I'm 100% guaranteed that things WON'T break.
> please stop complaining that your hardware from 1994
Straw man much? We just want our i7's from ~5+ years ago to be supported. No one is whining about 1994 hardware except you.
Massive is relative.
15 micrometer is only 0.015 mm. Massive would be 1,500 meters.
0.015 mm is massive compared to 10^-10 m.
Context matters.
It was probably either:
* Celestia
* Stellarium
There is also this WebGL Stars demo back from 2012.
> A space MMO based on this data and the exoplanet data would be insanely awesome.
Yes and no.
There are multiple problems.
The #1 problem, as said famously by Douglas Adam, is: Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.
Unless you give players:
* FTL (Faster then Light) / Warp Speed ,and
* Multiple reasons to navigate around the galaxy
Exploration alone is pretty boring. One of the primary reasons EVE Online has lasted so long because of POS - Player Owned Structures/Stations, such as Starbases and Citadels
The #2 problem is: What does progression look like?
i.e. What is the end game? What do players _actually_ do that will keep them interested?
If you search for how scientifically accurate is elite dangerous you will come find that Elite:Dangerous already has part of its star map based on real star systems:
Elite:Dangerous even "loosely" predicted the Trappist-1 sytem.
You may also be interested in:
* Orbiter
* Space Simulator
* Kerbal space program
I haven't played those so can't confirm their accuracy.
I agree with the time frame being somewhere between ~1989 - ~2000.
1989 = NextStep -- Very good
1990 = Windows 3.1 -- Ugh, no!
1995 = Windows 95 -- Decent
I.e. HTML5/CSS demo of Win95 scrollbars:
https://codepen.io/louh/pen/oZ...
> I'm not sure I'd have even noticed the change
I posted screenshots and descriptions of what has changed. To the untrained eye changes would probably seem subtle -- but the changes stick out like a sore thumb to me.
> Why is this slight graphics refresh a news story?
Reasons.
Here are step-by-step instructions to try out the new UI:
1. Click on Gear top right
2. Click on the first menu choice Try the new Gmail
If you don't see "Try the new Gmail" menu choice -- it hasn't been rolled out to your account (yet).
3. Select the layout Default, Comfortable, Compact
Don't worry if you picked the wrong choice. You can click on gear icon in the top right and the non-descript Display density to choose between the three.
Thankfully we can Go back to classic Gmail for now -- until Google rams it down our throats, whether we want it or not.
Since the bloody article can't even show the visual differences here are screenshots comparing the old and new:
* The left column/sidebar of Inbox, Important, Sent Mail, etc. is wider. Number of unread are now in their own sub-column instead of immediately after the Folder name.
Old left Sidebar
New left Sidebar
* Tabs (Primary, Social, Promotions, Updates, Forums) no longer have a vertical line separating them. You HAVE to mouse over them to see where each button ends.
Old Tabs
New Tabs
* The 2nd column which showed the Senders and the number of emails in a thread no longer shows (#) but just the # number by itself making this harder to read.
Old senders
New senders
The Topic column is less wide, meaning you can't see entire short emails now.
Old subject
New subject
Do. Not. Want.
--
"Get off my LAN." -- Grumpy old programmer
Almost instantly reverted. The new UI wastes so much screen space -- and I'm running in compact mode (in both Classicy and New modes)
* Tabs (Primary, Social, Promotions, Updates, Forums) no longer have a vertical line separating them. You HAVE to mouse over them to see where each button ends.
* The left column of Inbox, Important, Sent Mail, etc. is wider.
* The 2nd column which showed the Senders and the number of emails in a thread no longer shows (#) but just the # number by itself.
* The middle columns are now less wide
* A new right column which shows vertical icons of Calendar, Keep, Tasks now wastes space
* The number of lines in the Inbox is now less due to the spacing between threads being increased.
Lauren Weinstein is a corporate shill who thinks ad blockers are unethical :
> But the human eye has its limits too. What's the actual N, beyond which we, the humans -- even those with the sharpest eyes -- can no longer distinguish between N and 2N pixels per inch?
The TL:DR; version is: Use a 4K distance calculator
* Distance Graph (PNG)
* Size to Distance Calculator
The Long version: It's complicated
From a well known and respected Photography:
http://clarkvision.com/imagede...
But if we do the math ...
Another calculation estimates around ~2200 dpi.
http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes...
But since we don't view things from 4 inches away ...
n/t.
/sarcasm You just need to wait a few more years when the UI from ~2000 will be in vogue again and will be pimped as the latest shiny.
While we are waiting can we also kill "endless scrolling" where a user has NO clue how far (vertically) they are along the (page) content? There is a reason scrollbars have a thumb knob.
LOL. Mod parent +1 funny.
> Jury nullification is, by necessity, a complete undermining of the legal and judicial process.
Uh, that's it purpose, McFly. It is supposed to be used to nullify BAD laws.
It is basically the equivalent of civil disobedience but in the legal framework.