I don't know about you, but two decades ago I was still searching through instruction manuals for the third word of the second paragraph on the eighth page in order to load my games. Online gaming, even remotely related to the current forms and standards, isn't even old enough for kindergarten class yet.
Well, the exposure time may have been off by a factor of two, but the explanation still holds water. 1/48 second exposure time multiplied by 24 frames is still a half second of actual motion conveyed per second. There is an effectively (Planck, blah blah) infinite amount of points in time that each 1/48 second image captures. Compare that to zero seconds of exposure time, with explicit points in time captured measured by the number of frames.
I think that might be possible, but hardware is so far behind that it's unreal. Let's assume the most basic implementation, with minimal advances in hardware technology needed. The engine would have to take sample snapshots during the inter-frame period. 3 snapshots would provide a decent sample, especially if it was weighted against the previously viewed frame. The engine is now rendering 3 frames per visible frame. Add on top of that the processing time to merge the frames and create a plausible blur. With some ingenuity, I could see that taking about the same power as rendering 1.5 frames. So, now for every visible frame, 4.5 frames worth of rendering power is being used.
Your 90 FPS game just dropped to 20 FPS. Somehow I see that going over like a lead balloon. Crysis anyone?
Yeah, if it was at night then it was definitely due to the 60Hz light sources. Strangely enough, you can tighten shiny lug nuts on your car in such a way that it produces the wagon-wheel effect during continuous (natural) light. It all has to do with your eyes focusing on the reflections. Humming at just the right pitch works, too.
I spent 3 1/2 years between Iraq and Afghanistan, so I suppose I have the kind of perspective you're looking for here.
Yes, I've "known that kind of fear." Yes, I've "had to contemplate absorbing a small piece of lead at supersonic speeds when you show up at the office." In fact, judging from the former cops who ended up in my unit, most cops have no earthly idea what real fear is.
But, to get to my point, that is absolutely no excuse. No excuse whatsoever. Police officers should never EVER be cut slack because of their perceived level of risk, because they accept that risk in exchange for their nearly unlimited power over civilians. When an officer (or soldier, or anyone else) abuses that power, they should be held to the absolute highest accountability. Life imprisonment is too good for people who use abuse governmental authority at the expense of the populace.
I hope you're not in IT. I can imagine you telling your management, "we're running Solaris 8/9 and have never applied any patches."
I'm in IT. We run Solaris 8 and Solaris 9, both with _no_ patches. Not even the daylight savings ones, which means we have to, twice a year, reset all the clocks at 2 AM.
Of course, that's a risk-averse PHB declaring that from on high, not the other way around.
I'm completely familiar with Video Professor. It's a computer self-help tutorial driven course delivered on CD or what have you since the Windows 3.x days, probably even earlier. You've probably seen the commericals at least once or twice in the last twenty years.
What I don't know is what the hell all this is about. Could the summary give us more than "Video Professor's tactics sound... deceptive"? What tactics? What is so deceptive? I'm not asking for the entire article, but the summary should at least hit up some of the major points.
The thing was that the author, if you believe him, checked it on the same day back and forth between Bing-encrusted and crusty-free browsers. The price as seen from the Bing-encrusted browser was consistently $758, but the price through the crusty-free browser was $699. It wasn't just cached information from Bing's index, although it is now that the site "corrected" its pricing.
The difference is that Google's market share (~65%) has been earned through having a superior product, where most of Bing's current market share (~10%) can be easily attributed to the search engine being forced on unsuspecting IE users.
1) It only takes a single negative event to disprove an assertion of "100%."
2) I didn't make the underlying claim that "quitting smoking kills." I made the underlying claim that "willpower alone is the panacea for all" is bullshit.
I'm not attempting to disprove the entire method. It has clearly worked for many people. Just like lots of hard work has worked for many aspiring astronauts. I am disproving the "100% effective" claim. Saying that willpower alone is good enough for absolutely everybody (which the G^n-P implied) is clearly false. Any additional avenues becoming available for people who suffer from addiction can only help.
So it's a nicotine absorption vaccine. Hence the name NicVax. They're preventing absorption, which has the beneficial side effect of helping with addiction.
What I'm hearing from you is "Oh, he was nuts, so no big deal." You seem to be trying to rebut my assertion that quitting smoking strongly affects people by downplaying my anecdote. I shall then assume that you contending that quitting smoking has negligible psychological impact. Are you just going to do some cryptic hand waving and blame it on sheer coincidence?
I hear will-power and the notion of a life plagued by health problems followed by an early death completed clinical trials sixty years ago. What's more, there are no side effects, and when taken properly, there is a 100% chance of success.
Oh, yes, willpower. Just like everyone getting to be an astronaut if they just want it bad enough. Nevermind the host of withdrawal symptoms, the psychological aspects of which are more severe than most people can imagine. Case in point: a veteran friend of mine quit smoking. He had his PTSD and depression under perfect control for years until his family pressured him into quitting cold-turkey because "all he needed is willpower." Things went downhill fast, but he was hassled by everyone for wanting to start again because he wouldn't be "man enough" if he couldn't quit. Three days later, he committed suicide in front of his wife and two children.
Grow up and realize that not everything is as cut and dried as your tunnel-vision world view.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about you, but two decades ago I was still searching through instruction manuals for the third word of the second paragraph on the eighth page in order to load my games. Online gaming, even remotely related to the current forms and standards, isn't even old enough for kindergarten class yet.
You've just started noticing this? Where have you been the past few years?
Well, the exposure time may have been off by a factor of two, but the explanation still holds water. 1/48 second exposure time multiplied by 24 frames is still a half second of actual motion conveyed per second. There is an effectively (Planck, blah blah) infinite amount of points in time that each 1/48 second image captures. Compare that to zero seconds of exposure time, with explicit points in time captured measured by the number of frames.
I think that might be possible, but hardware is so far behind that it's unreal. Let's assume the most basic implementation, with minimal advances in hardware technology needed. The engine would have to take sample snapshots during the inter-frame period. 3 snapshots would provide a decent sample, especially if it was weighted against the previously viewed frame. The engine is now rendering 3 frames per visible frame. Add on top of that the processing time to merge the frames and create a plausible blur. With some ingenuity, I could see that taking about the same power as rendering 1.5 frames. So, now for every visible frame, 4.5 frames worth of rendering power is being used.
Your 90 FPS game just dropped to 20 FPS. Somehow I see that going over like a lead balloon. Crysis anyone?
Yeah, if it was at night then it was definitely due to the 60Hz light sources. Strangely enough, you can tighten shiny lug nuts on your car in such a way that it produces the wagon-wheel effect during continuous (natural) light. It all has to do with your eyes focusing on the reflections. Humming at just the right pitch works, too.
The key word here being "if."
I spent 3 1/2 years between Iraq and Afghanistan, so I suppose I have the kind of perspective you're looking for here.
Yes, I've "known that kind of fear." Yes, I've "had to contemplate absorbing a small piece of lead at supersonic speeds when you show up at the office." In fact, judging from the former cops who ended up in my unit, most cops have no earthly idea what real fear is.
But, to get to my point, that is absolutely no excuse. No excuse whatsoever. Police officers should never EVER be cut slack because of their perceived level of risk, because they accept that risk in exchange for their nearly unlimited power over civilians. When an officer (or soldier, or anyone else) abuses that power, they should be held to the absolute highest accountability. Life imprisonment is too good for people who use abuse governmental authority at the expense of the populace.
How about "+1, Flight Club Quote"?
I hope you're not in IT. I can imagine you telling your management, "we're running Solaris 8/9 and have never applied any patches."
I'm in IT. We run Solaris 8 and Solaris 9, both with _no_ patches. Not even the daylight savings ones, which means we have to, twice a year, reset all the clocks at 2 AM.
Of course, that's a risk-averse PHB declaring that from on high, not the other way around.
Four articles is a bit much.
Or you can read the first article linked, which goes into great detail about video professor.
Perhaps you should RTEntireFA?
I'm completely familiar with Video Professor. It's a computer self-help tutorial driven course delivered on CD or what have you since the Windows 3.x days, probably even earlier. You've probably seen the commericals at least once or twice in the last twenty years.
... deceptive"? What tactics? What is so deceptive? I'm not asking for the entire article, but the summary should at least hit up some of the major points.
What I don't know is what the hell all this is about. Could the summary give us more than "Video Professor's tactics sound
The thing was that the author, if you believe him, checked it on the same day back and forth between Bing-encrusted and crusty-free browsers. The price as seen from the Bing-encrusted browser was consistently $758, but the price through the crusty-free browser was $699. It wasn't just cached information from Bing's index, although it is now that the site "corrected" its pricing.
The difference is that Google's market share (~65%) has been earned through having a superior product, where most of Bing's current market share (~10%) can be easily attributed to the search engine being forced on unsuspecting IE users.
Thanks, that's all I needed.
1) It only takes a single negative event to disprove an assertion of "100%."
2) I didn't make the underlying claim that "quitting smoking kills." I made the underlying claim that "willpower alone is the panacea for all" is bullshit.
I'm not attempting to disprove the entire method. It has clearly worked for many people. Just like lots of hard work has worked for many aspiring astronauts. I am disproving the "100% effective" claim. Saying that willpower alone is good enough for absolutely everybody (which the G^n-P implied) is clearly false. Any additional avenues becoming available for people who suffer from addiction can only help.
So it's a nicotine absorption vaccine. Hence the name NicVax. They're preventing absorption, which has the beneficial side effect of helping with addiction.
What I'm hearing from you is "Oh, he was nuts, so no big deal." You seem to be trying to rebut my assertion that quitting smoking strongly affects people by downplaying my anecdote. I shall then assume that you contending that quitting smoking has negligible psychological impact. Are you just going to do some cryptic hand waving and blame it on sheer coincidence?
I hear will-power and the notion of a life plagued by health problems followed by an early death completed clinical trials sixty years ago. What's more, there are no side effects, and when taken properly, there is a 100% chance of success.
Oh, yes, willpower. Just like everyone getting to be an astronaut if they just want it bad enough. Nevermind the host of withdrawal symptoms, the psychological aspects of which are more severe than most people can imagine. Case in point: a veteran friend of mine quit smoking. He had his PTSD and depression under perfect control for years until his family pressured him into quitting cold-turkey because "all he needed is willpower." Things went downhill fast, but he was hassled by everyone for wanting to start again because he wouldn't be "man enough" if he couldn't quit. Three days later, he committed suicide in front of his wife and two children.
Grow up and realize that not everything is as cut and dried as your tunnel-vision world view.
Apple = Mac, at least a hell of a lot more than "Non-Mac = Windows," which they shove down the collective consumer throat.
I would think respondeat superior, or "let the master answer," would be a more appropriate legal doctrine.
I 3 the EFF. I don't exactly have the cash to donate at the moment, but hopefully I can intern there when I start law school.
I'm not saying that the entire internet infrastructure isn't reliable, it's just not "high stakes" (which I read as life-or-death) reliable.
One word: Forkbomb. :|:& };:
:(){
Yeah, I know any competent admin can protect against it, but still.