If you take the time to read the article, you'll notice that they're actually asking whether these programs are mismanaged and doomed to fail as a result. Just look at their social networking endeavors, and tell me that you honestly think they weren't throwing out half baked solutions that had not real chance of succeeding in the market.
I was arguing about this with my brother, and he asked the question "could God make a stone so big even he could not lift it." So I though of the stone as a kind of burden such as the way a criminal might have been attached to a stone to limit his movement. This reminded me of sin and God's statement that man would surely die. But then, the core focus of Christianity is that it is possible, through God, for a man to have eternal life. In a way, the torah says that God can make such a heavy stone, but the profits and the new testament say that he can also lift it. So I told my brother "yes he can make such a stone, but he can also lift it." Needless to say, the subtly of my response did not impress him even after I tried to explain my reasoning to him.
It's like you say. If you begin with an illogical premise, you shouldn't be surprised that the answer would defy such logic as well.
It's like the BP pipeline spill in Alaska. Originally the engineers who designed and built it said the whole thing need to be ex-rayed and inspected periodically (I don't recall the period but it was like 5 or 10 years). After the spill, they found only 20% of it had ever been inspected. Various managers would cut certain department budgets by an arbitrary percentage to save costs and earn bonuses, and the cuts would be kicked down the line to managers who did not have the authority to question them. In the end, cutting the maintenance budget meant that large sections of pipe would never be inspected, and a leak was a foregone conclusion. But the arbitrary nature of the cuts meant that the managers had no idea that's what they were ordering.
This is hardly an isolated incident of it. People count on a kind of institutional intelligence to catch these things, but it's actually all a fantasy. Once you take the authority to make decisions away from the people doing the work, things inevitably fall through the cracks. Sometimes even surprisingly large things, like inspecting a pipeline or maintaing adequate flood protection goes completely unnoticed by upper management.
Eliminating the incentive for predatory government agencies to spy on us may be more effective, and wouldn't have the same chilling effect on emerging technologies.
We can make devices with a minimum feature size of 32nm. So this is not beyond current technology by any means. On the other hand, it would be very expensive. Using a 32nm process to make something the size of an iPad screen would cost about $55,000. That's not to mention the image processing that would go into such a device. However, you could probably get away with much larger elements than that, and costs for these kind of things do tend to come down over time.
A light field display would construct an actual light field like the one your eyes normally interact with. It wold have depth of field, and the projected image would appear to change as to move around it, and as you move closer to it. You have to remember that in the physical world, there is only a light field, your eyes intercept it and process it to generate those other effects (excepting depth of field, which is generated physically by the lens in your eye).
The actions performed in the move would be possible with a light field image. Though the physical picture he used in the clip appears to be a conventional flat image.
When will we get a light field display? It's only logical that you'd need both to truly leverage this invention. And seeing as you can get displays with >300 dpi resolution today, it's only a matter of time before displays have enough resolution, and computers have enough processing power to display light field images.
Not understanding why someone did something is a a reason to be interested, since it can bring greater understanding on your part. Being curious is the first step of the scientific method.
They don't offer one. But they have grandfathered old unlimited plans so as not to piss off existing customers. It's a strange idea, though, because anyone still with AT&T at this point is already a certified masochist.
now put a check box next to the ones that claim to be Christian or offshoots there of.
And a checkbox is all it is. I would be really surprised if more than a handful of them actually practice christianity, beyond simply going to church (going to church doesn't make someone a christian anymore than going to a football game makes them a football player).
Slashdot Mirror
Bear in mind that clinical trials are carried out by these corporations. They aren't cheap. And they don't always play out.
I have better advice. Fuck off. You and all the other assholes who love living in a police state. Kill yourself. I'm serious.
If you take the time to read the article, you'll notice that they're actually asking whether these programs are mismanaged and doomed to fail as a result. Just look at their social networking endeavors, and tell me that you honestly think they weren't throwing out half baked solutions that had not real chance of succeeding in the market.
Yes, but you're arguing about one thing while I am saying something entirely different.
It's all the same.
I was arguing about this with my brother, and he asked the question "could God make a stone so big even he could not lift it." So I though of the stone as a kind of burden such as the way a criminal might have been attached to a stone to limit his movement. This reminded me of sin and God's statement that man would surely die. But then, the core focus of Christianity is that it is possible, through God, for a man to have eternal life. In a way, the torah says that God can make such a heavy stone, but the profits and the new testament say that he can also lift it. So I told my brother "yes he can make such a stone, but he can also lift it." Needless to say, the subtly of my response did not impress him even after I tried to explain my reasoning to him.
It's like you say. If you begin with an illogical premise, you shouldn't be surprised that the answer would defy such logic as well.
Yes. He can also eat it.
It's like the BP pipeline spill in Alaska. Originally the engineers who designed and built it said the whole thing need to be ex-rayed and inspected periodically (I don't recall the period but it was like 5 or 10 years). After the spill, they found only 20% of it had ever been inspected. Various managers would cut certain department budgets by an arbitrary percentage to save costs and earn bonuses, and the cuts would be kicked down the line to managers who did not have the authority to question them. In the end, cutting the maintenance budget meant that large sections of pipe would never be inspected, and a leak was a foregone conclusion. But the arbitrary nature of the cuts meant that the managers had no idea that's what they were ordering.
This is hardly an isolated incident of it. People count on a kind of institutional intelligence to catch these things, but it's actually all a fantasy. Once you take the authority to make decisions away from the people doing the work, things inevitably fall through the cracks. Sometimes even surprisingly large things, like inspecting a pipeline or maintaing adequate flood protection goes completely unnoticed by upper management.
Eliminating the incentive for predatory government agencies to spy on us may be more effective, and wouldn't have the same chilling effect on emerging technologies.
It can be achieved using a flat filter. That's how this camera images a light field, and the same process works in reverse.
Bladerunner is supposed to take place in 2019, so we still have 7 years for imaging technology to catch up.
We can make devices with a minimum feature size of 32nm. So this is not beyond current technology by any means. On the other hand, it would be very expensive. Using a 32nm process to make something the size of an iPad screen would cost about $55,000. That's not to mention the image processing that would go into such a device. However, you could probably get away with much larger elements than that, and costs for these kind of things do tend to come down over time.
A light field display would construct an actual light field like the one your eyes normally interact with. It wold have depth of field, and the projected image would appear to change as to move around it, and as you move closer to it. You have to remember that in the physical world, there is only a light field, your eyes intercept it and process it to generate those other effects (excepting depth of field, which is generated physically by the lens in your eye).
The actions performed in the move would be possible with a light field image. Though the physical picture he used in the clip appears to be a conventional flat image.
I think there's a point where it's fair to start calling it "real" 3D, since the projected image would be indistinguishable an actual 3D object.
No it isn't. The reduction happens when the software generates the image for the viewer.
It would project a light field, rather than a flat image.
When will we get a light field display? It's only logical that you'd need both to truly leverage this invention. And seeing as you can get displays with >300 dpi resolution today, it's only a matter of time before displays have enough resolution, and computers have enough processing power to display light field images.
$20 Billion is approximately NASA's yearly budget. Much more apt comparison.
I take it you don't have much experience talking to the police?
Not understanding why someone did something is a a reason to be interested, since it can bring greater understanding on your part. Being curious is the first step of the scientific method.
What if you put the gun inside the tin?
I can't imagine how anything could be worse than my IT department.
They don't offer one. But they have grandfathered old unlimited plans so as not to piss off existing customers. It's a strange idea, though, because anyone still with AT&T at this point is already a certified masochist.
And a checkbox is all it is. I would be really surprised if more than a handful of them actually practice christianity, beyond simply going to church (going to church doesn't make someone a christian anymore than going to a football game makes them a football player).