Or when nobody remembers. Though people still seem to hope for...something; despite the alley of oldest "graves" being often just a nice collection of relocated ones.
It's not hard to meet people who are completely regulated (on the level of decision-making too, obviously) by something as simple (and external) as C2H5OH; and few other similarly simple compounds.
A colony of bacteria, numbering an order of magnitude more cells than the "human" ones in our bodies, might also "figure out" (so to speak) similar tricks.
For some time now I am certainly under the impression that my appetites changed quite a bit after intimate contacts with people from slightly distant region.
At a general level - humans seem to operate roughly like that, too. It's not even about how long-term civilizational dynamics escape us. Something as simple as looking at a place of birth, conditions there, family, early relationships, models of behavior and work, ideas to which one is exposed early in life - giving a damn good guess about future life of that individual.
But the broader look, at the civilization, would be especially funny if what we're really doing is implementing the Medea Hypothesis.
Note exactly more consistent when many "symbioses" are invariably destined for failure, how we accumulate more of them / world provides new ones; and how eradication of diseases proves to be a damn good thing.
It won't be identical if it's beyond control, if when looking somewhere where one shouldn't - there is still only doubled and blurry image there, no matter how hard the eyes try. Worse, isn't this on what eyes constantly stumble upon during "proper" viewing anyway, when depth of focus in the displayed image changes, just a bit in reverse? (the perceived focus & parallax change - but the visual system must suppress playing along, remain mostly fixed on the screen)
Perhaps most telling is how the posterchild of recent "3D" movement seems almost like a meta-joke: for all the advanced tech in the setting of Avatar (insane energy densities, interstellar travel at high relativistic speeds, huge advances in materials science, neuroimaging, and so on), the display tech is, overall, barely further along from our times, and from what it promotes. Virtually all instances of photographs were...plain old analogue prints (*). Virtually all displays not really utilizing "3D" - except for the topographic one, used not for displaying recorded "3D video" (what many scifi productions had for some time), but simply for what is (also in setting!) just a generated CGI. Where was something as straightforward as, for example, augmented contact lenses? (something what we essentially have already, in the form of airplane helmets, skiing goggles and,lately (I heard), even glasses with HUD; all of which can get interesting once coupled with basically current augmented toys on smartphones) Never mind how, with such levels of neuroimaging and "neurolinking", a simple patch acting as a brain-computer interface should be doable, for the most basic stuff.
It almost looks like Cameron has something else in mind for cheap stereoscopic screens (doesn't he have some physics background? They should be nice for education and few of the "inspiring" or revving-up scientific disciplines), but knows what was the only way to get mass-commodity industry onboard.
(*)IRL, 2D photography also completely dominates, despite its "3D" sister being barely younger, at ~160 years old. With some fascination now and then, with cheap and easy setup possible for a long time. But ultimately - ignored. When was the last time you've made a "3D" photo? Have you seen even one such photo made by the people you know? Do you have that Nvidia "3D" glasses thing for games, available for 2 years or so? VirtualBoy?
Of course they're also buying mining rights throughout the globe. Won't work in all the places naturally, but should be enough to stifle manufacturing know how and infrastructure of others.
So, what was it again with the previous effort at mobile Mozilla, its abandonment and "we'll wait for the hardware" (which is finally getting there in a very small portion of the market), while some other engines are happily running on mobiles for years and being available on a vastly broader spectrum of phones?
Officially released 64 bit version, great session management (per window if one prefers; never corrupts a session file for me, unlike FF), adblocking built in (just need to be provided with a list), even a bit too far with configurability (most people don't know what's there); and for years userjs (can also put items into RMB menu and bookmarklets) & css, plus for a year "Unite" mechanism (usage of which got quickly hijacked for local capabilities), both essentially giving extensions without calling them that (though the naming ceremony was just now, and the mechanism will be complaint with future W3C standard) - that's not head in the game? Especially compared with IE?
(might also throw in 70 million mobile users with triple-digit annual growth percentages, most of them on so called "feature phones"...not waiting for hardware to get "fast enough" in small portion of devices)
Most telling is how the previous effort at mobile Mozilla ended - "we're wait for hardware to get better"...and while small portion of mobile phones finally can pull it off, some other engines had been happily running on much more modest hardware for years now (heck, even S40 - the most popular mobile phone platform on the planet, so called "feature phone" one - uses Webkit for two years or so; Opera Mobile ran fine for me on a ~230 ARM11 with 18 MB of user RAM)
(though I was trying to quickly find an episode of some other animated series from around that time; in which neglected geeks were tricked by the villain into creating a black hole - which in turn starts to consume, in a "fluid" way, the planet of protagonists; which ultimately can be only stopped by "something as destructive as itself" (some death ray, apparently); turning it into white hole spewing all the structures back; oh well...)
There's a lot of perfectly fine older machines out there, making sure how well the browsers "scale down" would be much more worthwhile than swapping one fast setup for another ridiculously fast setup, with a few more factors than claimed "number of cores" and comparing each browser only to itself.
Re:Conclusion: Firefox 3.6 scales best across core
on
How Do Browsers Scale?
·
· Score: 1
Underlying methodology was also curious, to say the least. All the browsers were judged based only on their own improvement when going from slower to faster setup. Well...what if, hypothetically, some browser is already fabulous on the slower one, already close to some ceiling fundamentally limited by factors external to its code? What if some other is absolutely horrible on slower machines and it essentially relies on much faster hardware for improvement?
All the while ignoring huge architectural and clockspeed differences between the two CPUs. With such testing scenario, going from 2 to 6 cores can have a negligible impact for all we know.
Generally, who cares about the improvement on a monster of a CPU? (except for "does getting it make sense at all already? Oh...") That's not what vast majority of people use, shouldn't be targeted, generally isn't and hence provides performance way in the area of "good enough". Performance on real low end, like some machine from 5 (or more...) years ago, is where this makes a huge difference. How well it scales down, how long it remains pleasant and usable.
Officially quoted number of members can influence policies or legitimize feeling of self-importance in some fringe social movements. One small example. Or another, about how some opening points of the constitution are a fiction, also according to every court along the way and our national constitutional tribunal, it had to go to Strasbourg. Or our late president clearly stating, during his speech at the last Day of Independence celebrations (certainly one of speeches of top significance), that to be a true Pole means being a Catholic - while he is the organ which, constitutionally, is supposed to uphold and defend the...constitution. Instead he mocked it (yes, a large part of him being in office was a mobilization of people from the first link above)
But it adds wrong parallax (not merely an image of "incomplete" kind), one that doesn't work right - objects don't become "doubled" when in front of or behind the depth of focus.
I first learned of the Mandelbrot set while watching one of Clarke documentaries, Fractals: the colours of infinity - very nicely done; very inspiring(*), as was the performance (despite its shortness) of Benoit Mandelbrot himself.
Now both gone:/
(*)perhaps too inspiring - I still wait for something like that fractal compression of parrot picture.
The tech in the... 30s, actually, worked just the same, with "outstanding results" (but if you insist on 50s there's The "golden era" section)
It can be easily argued how it doesn't take advantage of our "two" channels, instead confusing them, providing information which is not merely incomplete but outright false (convincing the visual cortex of depth while making refocusing and changes of parallax impossible)
Also, the "3D" sister of photography is available for over 150 years; and for a long time quite cheap and easy, from time to time also with some momentary enthusiasm... but when was the last time you viewed such photo made by somebody you know? have you made even one yourself? Do you know anybody who did?
As far as PR goes, the upcoming pan-EU census might also give some interesting results. At least in my place there was a question about faith in the last national census; should be now, too. It might finally put a dent into the "95+% Catholics" claimed by the Church - interestingly, they seem to be opposed to the inclusion of that question this time.
Slashdot Mirror
Or when nobody remembers. Though people still seem to hope for...something; despite the alley of oldest "graves" being often just a nice collection of relocated ones.
It's not hard to meet people who are completely regulated (on the level of decision-making too, obviously) by something as simple (and external) as C2H5OH; and few other similarly simple compounds.
A colony of bacteria, numbering an order of magnitude more cells than the "human" ones in our bodies, might also "figure out" (so to speak) similar tricks.
For some time now I am certainly under the impression that my appetites changed quite a bit after intimate contacts with people from slightly distant region.
At a general level - humans seem to operate roughly like that, too. It's not even about how long-term civilizational dynamics escape us. Something as simple as looking at a place of birth, conditions there, family, early relationships, models of behavior and work, ideas to which one is exposed early in life - giving a damn good guess about future life of that individual.
But the broader look, at the civilization, would be especially funny if what we're really doing is implementing the Medea Hypothesis.
Note exactly more consistent when many "symbioses" are invariably destined for failure, how we accumulate more of them / world provides new ones; and how eradication of diseases proves to be a damn good thing.
If somebody is able to willingly drink appreciable quantities of vinegar, it must make him happy.
It won't be identical if it's beyond control, if when looking somewhere where one shouldn't - there is still only doubled and blurry image there, no matter how hard the eyes try. Worse, isn't this on what eyes constantly stumble upon during "proper" viewing anyway, when depth of focus in the displayed image changes, just a bit in reverse? (the perceived focus & parallax change - but the visual system must suppress playing along, remain mostly fixed on the screen)
Perhaps most telling is how the posterchild of recent "3D" movement seems almost like a meta-joke: for all the advanced tech in the setting of Avatar (insane energy densities, interstellar travel at high relativistic speeds, huge advances in materials science, neuroimaging, and so on), the display tech is, overall, barely further along from our times, and from what it promotes. Virtually all instances of photographs were...plain old analogue prints (*). Virtually all displays not really utilizing "3D" - except for the topographic one, used not for displaying recorded "3D video" (what many scifi productions had for some time), but simply for what is (also in setting!) just a generated CGI. Where was something as straightforward as, for example, augmented contact lenses? (something what we essentially have already, in the form of airplane helmets, skiing goggles and ,lately (I heard), even glasses with HUD; all of which can get interesting once coupled with basically current augmented toys on smartphones) Never mind how, with such levels of neuroimaging and "neurolinking", a simple patch acting as a brain-computer interface should be doable, for the most basic stuff.
It almost looks like Cameron has something else in mind for cheap stereoscopic screens (doesn't he have some physics background? They should be nice for education and few of the "inspiring" or revving-up scientific disciplines), but knows what was the only way to get mass-commodity industry onboard.
(*)IRL, 2D photography also completely dominates, despite its "3D" sister being barely younger, at ~160 years old. With some fascination now and then, with cheap and easy setup possible for a long time. But ultimately - ignored. When was the last time you've made a "3D" photo? Have you seen even one such photo made by the people you know?
Do you have that Nvidia "3D" glasses thing for games, available for 2 years or so? VirtualBoy?
Of course they're also buying mining rights throughout the globe. Won't work in all the places naturally, but should be enough to stifle manufacturing know how and infrastructure of others.
In most places things get ugly (well, much uglier at least) if people in the position of power get peanuts, officially.
Netcraft confirms it: BSD is dying.
So, what was it again with the previous effort at mobile Mozilla, its abandonment and "we'll wait for the hardware" (which is finally getting there in a very small portion of the market), while some other engines are happily running on mobiles for years and being available on a vastly broader spectrum of phones?
Officially released 64 bit version, great session management (per window if one prefers; never corrupts a session file for me, unlike FF), adblocking built in (just need to be provided with a list), even a bit too far with configurability (most people don't know what's there); and for years userjs (can also put items into RMB menu and bookmarklets) & css, plus for a year "Unite" mechanism (usage of which got quickly hijacked for local capabilities), both essentially giving extensions without calling them that (though the naming ceremony was just now, and the mechanism will be complaint with future W3C standard) - that's not head in the game? Especially compared with IE?
(might also throw in 70 million mobile users with triple-digit annual growth percentages, most of them on so called "feature phones"...not waiting for hardware to get "fast enough" in small portion of devices)
Most telling is how the previous effort at mobile Mozilla ended - "we're wait for hardware to get better"...and while small portion of mobile phones finally can pull it off, some other engines had been happily running on much more modest hardware for years now (heck, even S40 - the most popular mobile phone platform on the planet, so called "feature phone" one - uses Webkit for two years or so; Opera Mobile ran fine for me on a ~230 ARM11 with 18 MB of user RAM)
HE-MAN!
(though I was trying to quickly find an episode of some other animated series from around that time; in which neglected geeks were tricked by the villain into creating a black hole - which in turn starts to consume, in a "fluid" way, the planet of protagonists; which ultimately can be only stopped by "something as destructive as itself" (some death ray, apparently); turning it into white hole spewing all the structures back; oh well...)
And what gives you the knowledge to make those assertions? We could as well be further than many wanting-to-look-smart-people might assume.
(obviously we're not talking simply about "GIS, but for the Universe" thing)
"Cool"?...simply normal. And no reason for jokes.
There's a lot of perfectly fine older machines out there, making sure how well the browsers "scale down" would be much more worthwhile than swapping one fast setup for another ridiculously fast setup, with a few more factors than claimed "number of cores" and comparing each browser only to itself.
Underlying methodology was also curious, to say the least. All the browsers were judged based only on their own improvement when going from slower to faster setup. Well...what if, hypothetically, some browser is already fabulous on the slower one, already close to some ceiling fundamentally limited by factors external to its code? What if some other is absolutely horrible on slower machines and it essentially relies on much faster hardware for improvement?
All the while ignoring huge architectural and clockspeed differences between the two CPUs. With such testing scenario, going from 2 to 6 cores can have a negligible impact for all we know.
Generally, who cares about the improvement on a monster of a CPU? (except for "does getting it make sense at all already? Oh...") That's not what vast majority of people use, shouldn't be targeted, generally isn't and hence provides performance way in the area of "good enough". Performance on real low end, like some machine from 5 (or more...) years ago, is where this makes a huge difference. How well it scales down, how long it remains pleasant and usable.
Officially quoted number of members can influence policies or legitimize feeling of self-importance in some fringe social movements. One small example. Or another, about how some opening points of the constitution are a fiction, also according to every court along the way and our national constitutional tribunal, it had to go to Strasbourg. Or our late president clearly stating, during his speech at the last Day of Independence celebrations (certainly one of speeches of top significance), that to be a true Pole means being a Catholic - while he is the organ which, constitutionally, is supposed to uphold and defend the...constitution. Instead he mocked it (yes, a large part of him being in office was a mobilization of people from the first link above)
But it adds wrong parallax (not merely an image of "incomplete" kind), one that doesn't work right - objects don't become "doubled" when in front of or behind the depth of focus.
A good opportunity to repent? (some nice imagery)
...or PCs, it would seem.
Anyway, I just remembered one more shiny: http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~keenan/project_qjulia.html (in "Ports" few variants which might be more to your liking; this page includes also "2D" mandelbrot and julia gpu viewer)
Not exactly interactive, but still quite nice concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Sheep
I first learned of the Mandelbrot set while watching one of Clarke documentaries, Fractals: the colours of infinity - very nicely done; very inspiring(*), as was the performance (despite its shortness) of Benoit Mandelbrot himself.
Now both gone :/
(*)perhaps too inspiring - I still wait for something like that fractal compression of parrot picture.
The tech in the ... 30s, actually, worked just the same, with "outstanding results" (but if you insist on 50s there's The "golden era" section)
It can be easily argued how it doesn't take advantage of our "two" channels, instead confusing them, providing information which is not merely incomplete but outright false (convincing the visual cortex of depth while making refocusing and changes of parallax impossible)
Also, the "3D" sister of photography is available for over 150 years; and for a long time quite cheap and easy, from time to time also with some momentary enthusiasm... but when was the last time you viewed such photo made by somebody you know? have you made even one yourself? Do you know anybody who did?
As far as PR goes, the upcoming pan-EU census might also give some interesting results. At least in my place there was a question about faith in the last national census; should be now, too. It might finally put a dent into the "95+% Catholics" claimed by the Church - interestingly, they seem to be opposed to the inclusion of that question this time.
Enlist here? ;)