How do you present objects life-size? The apparent deptch of the object relative to the cinema screen varies depending on the viewer's distance from the screen, and thus the apparent scale of the object also varies with the viewer's distance. To the viewer sitting next to the screen, the object may seem 2 feet tall and 2 feet into the screen. To the viewer up at the back, the same object may be 10 feet tall and 10 feet into the screen. More fundimentally the size of the image varies (obviously) with the screen size.
There's a lot wrong with 3D, but that argument's specious. I could argue against widescreen by pointing out the travesty of matted 16:9 versions of Academy Ratio movies: Does chopping off the top and bottom of Citizen Kane make it any better?
They could at least make an unrealistic game that's inspirational in a relevant way. A game that's neither realistic nor interesting is a waste of time. Hand people a copy of Frontier and place them in a flying bus in Earth orbit, and they'll at least get a kick out of how huge the solar system is.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle puts a well-defined, quantitative lower limit on the certainty for certain pairs of variables. For example the uncertainty in momentum multiplied by the uncertainty in position for a particle must be greater than or equal to h/4pi. Breaking that limit would break Heisenberg, even if the results still weren't totally totally certain, accurate and precise.
Are most games framerate-capped? Wouldn't all games, at all times, be rendering as quickly as possible, operating to the graphics card's full potential?
Teletext usually gave about 500 characters/page plus some graphics. Given its popularity for things like news and sports, i.e. moderately-long articles, in the countries in which it is available, clearly it worked "well enough". As for "have a choice", it goes without saying that a product like this is not aimed at people who have the option of reading Wikipedia on a computer.
No good for attacking any individual user, plenty useful for anyone looking to streamline their search for soft targets for social engineering attacks.
Actually, a lot of creationists' claims are falsifiable. They make arguments about geology, fossils, isotope dating etc. can that can be readily compared to reality. Trouble is they've all been thoroughly disproven, leading to a purely theological fallback position ("it's just made to look that way by God!") which is unfalsifiable.
Right, but then Microsoft's corporate partners would throw a decoupling of service and hardware exception and MS'd have to send out a bunch of spokespeople to reassure T-Mo and the rest that no, Microsoft isn't about to advocate people buying phones off-contract.
We can't readily measure the size of stars across the whole universe, and you think that our likelihood of finding a star even closer to the Eddington limit is a slam-dunk? I think the guy who found this one has a pretty good idea how hard they are to come across.
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011
VOYAGER MISSION STATUS
August 1, 1994
Both the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft are healthy and they are continuing to take data on fields and particles in interplanetary space.
The Voyager 2 spacecraft used two of its scientific instruments to look at the impacts of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 fragments as they impacted Jupiter July 16-22. Both the ultraviolet spectrometer and the planetary radio astronomy experiments were used in the observations. Neither instrument detected any UV emission or radio signals during the impacts. The spacecraft began its observations of Jupiter on July 8 and will continue to observe the planet until August 17. At the time of the comet impacts, Voyager 2 was 6.1 billion kilometers (3.7 billion miles) from Jupiter.
Voyager 1 is currently 8.4 billion kilometers (5.2 billion miles) from Earth. Voyager 2 is 6.4 billion kilometers (4 billion miles) from Earth.
My question would be, why not try? It's not like it took time away from mission-critical operations.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you present objects life-size? The apparent deptch of the object relative to the cinema screen varies depending on the viewer's distance from the screen, and thus the apparent scale of the object also varies with the viewer's distance. To the viewer sitting next to the screen, the object may seem 2 feet tall and 2 feet into the screen. To the viewer up at the back, the same object may be 10 feet tall and 10 feet into the screen. More fundimentally the size of the image varies (obviously) with the screen size.
There's a lot wrong with 3D, but that argument's specious. I could argue against widescreen by pointing out the travesty of matted 16:9 versions of Academy Ratio movies: Does chopping off the top and bottom of Citizen Kane make it any better?
They could at least make an unrealistic game that's inspirational in a relevant way. A game that's neither realistic nor interesting is a waste of time. Hand people a copy of Frontier and place them in a flying bus in Earth orbit, and they'll at least get a kick out of how huge the solar system is.
I dunno, it could be anything that's 40 times stronger than plastic, or in lay units, about 41 times more scratch-resistant than warm butter.
Superglue would be funnier. Talk about a death-grip.
I thought that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle was an expression of some of the mathematics of quantum physics. ;)
I don't think you can really accuse people of cloning Microsoft Solitaire.
Err, limit on the uncertainty I should say.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle puts a well-defined, quantitative lower limit on the certainty for certain pairs of variables. For example the uncertainty in momentum multiplied by the uncertainty in position for a particle must be greater than or equal to h/4pi. Breaking that limit would break Heisenberg, even if the results still weren't totally totally certain, accurate and precise.
I don't know, Serious Cat, I think they tried translating the Constitution into lolspeak before and it wasn't very popular.
Are most games framerate-capped? Wouldn't all games, at all times, be rendering as quickly as possible, operating to the graphics card's full potential?
In Soviet Russia, Mozilla finds security flaw in Black Hat!
In that situation the manager fires the programmer and the company's shareholders praise the manager's bold leadership and direct action.
Teletext usually gave about 500 characters/page plus some graphics. Given its popularity for things like news and sports, i.e. moderately-long articles, in the countries in which it is available, clearly it worked "well enough". As for "have a choice", it goes without saying that a product like this is not aimed at people who have the option of reading Wikipedia on a computer.
Ah, the real rationale behind Microsoft's free Windows phones for staff.
(Which is to say, it's hardly a threat in itself, but it highlights one.)
No good for attacking any individual user, plenty useful for anyone looking to streamline their search for soft targets for social engineering attacks.
kdawson thinks in an esoteric language where numbers go "1, 2, 3... 999,999,999, many."
Actually, a lot of creationists' claims are falsifiable. They make arguments about geology, fossils, isotope dating etc. can that can be readily compared to reality. Trouble is they've all been thoroughly disproven, leading to a purely theological fallback position ("it's just made to look that way by God!") which is unfalsifiable.
Presumably presented in a class on paired opposites.
Right, but then Microsoft's corporate partners would throw a decoupling of service and hardware exception and MS'd have to send out a bunch of spokespeople to reassure T-Mo and the rest that no, Microsoft isn't about to advocate people buying phones off-contract.
If you happen to have access to Nature, this Philip Ball piece riffs on that topic.
We can't readily measure the size of stars across the whole universe, and you think that our likelihood of finding a star even closer to the Eddington limit is a slam-dunk? I think the guy who found this one has a pretty good idea how hard they are to come across.
That's the joke.
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011
VOYAGER MISSION STATUS
August 1, 1994
Both the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft are healthy and they are
continuing to take data on fields and particles in interplanetary
space.
The Voyager 2 spacecraft used two of its scientific
instruments to look at the impacts of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9
fragments as they impacted Jupiter July 16-22. Both the
ultraviolet spectrometer and the planetary radio astronomy
experiments were used in the observations. Neither instrument
detected any UV emission or radio signals during the impacts.
The spacecraft began its observations of Jupiter on July 8 and
will continue to observe the planet until August 17. At the
time of the comet impacts, Voyager 2 was 6.1 billion kilometers
(3.7 billion miles) from Jupiter.
Voyager 1 is currently 8.4 billion kilometers (5.2 billion
miles) from Earth. Voyager 2 is 6.4 billion kilometers (4
billion miles) from Earth.
My question would be, why not try? It's not like it took time away from mission-critical operations.