Bun, mostly. Cheese substitutes. The lowest grade meat they can get away with (taste wise. meat is graded on enjoyability, not food safety. If it's not safe, it's not supposed to be sold, period.). Stale pickles and lettuce. Salt. Butter substitute. ketchup and mustard.
There's nothing in there that's dangerous to eat, except that they picked items that are cheap to obtain and which have a higher salt, fat, calorie content than they ought to, since that's the most cost effective way to make it seem tasty.
The woman bore a child as part of her cover. Not saying that means there aren't damages, but clearly there are some issues there with good decision making.
f(x) = 1 - x^2/2 + x^4/24 - x^6/720 +... (where the constant diminishes rapidly, and 0<x<1)
If you know that the HOT affect the result less and less, you can drop them and still get a "good enough" though less perfect answer. You can keep dropping terms until the error is unacceptable, or in the case of something where the actual value is not critical (i.e. a block of pixels), you can keep dropping terms to reach a target number of operations and hope that the answer is sufficiently precise.
Now, in a video codec, it's probably a vector function, and it's probably not polynomial either (although any more complex functions will still be approximated with polynomials, whose number of terms would be chosen for performance reasons...). The point being that there are lots of opportunities to drop terms and save cycles (and as the compressed data itself is likely an array of coefficients, there are also opportunities to drop terms and save space at the other end) which result in lower quality output as a tradeoff.
Frankly, I'm not entirely sure whether "drop quality" ought to be preferred over "drop frames" but they're both choices on the spectrum of "making due with whacha got."
You know you have more in common, genetically speaking, with a goat than with a blue amazon from another planet. Heck, if oil comes from plant remains, you have more in common with a blow-up doll than with the ET.
Think about that when "V" v2.0 comes back on next year.
If they paid for something and didn't get it, they got screwed. That the theater recouped the ticket price is only part of their loss. They also lost time that they could've spent doing something else. We didn't all get screwed by DRM, but the people in that theater on that night did.
Points for building such a huge camera obscura. Points off for whatever issues made a photograph that huge so incredibly noisy. I suspect the exposure was too short since a pinhole camera of that size would have to be open for weeks to gather enough light to cover the canvas. Possibly light leakage from unintentional pinholes was also a problem. A photo that large should be unbelievably rich in detail or there's no point in making it, except to photograph the process of making a photograph that large.
True. But it lets producers get away with cheaper CG and less talented actors. It's the "Jay Leno at 10pm" production model (a.k.a. "Who cares how popular it is, it's cheap as dirt, so our markup percentage is through the roof.")
4. Robot attack formation is VERY poor
I'm sorry, I didn't realize we had people here who had extensively studied the military doctrine of asymmetrical conflict involving giant humanoid robot combined infantry/artillery. What academy do you go to for that, anyway?
Yeah, but checks are a terrible way to do this. There is no security. Just a routing number that's the same on every check, an account number that's the same on every check, and check number that probably is, but need not be, unique.
Those numbers are all that protects you from someone draining your checking account. You might as well do business by giving people your SSN (in the US) and counting on them to only take the agreed upon amount from whatever account they care to.
Checks are bad. Almost anything would be a better option. Even better-designed checks.
you're going to need auxiliary crust cylinders at intermediate radii if you want people to be able to hold a "60th slice".
Or, if regularity is not required, I suppose you could get away with some kind of chorded crust system. If sufficiently clever, everyone could get equal area pieces with no two slices being precisely the same shape. Maybe. I'm no good at solving the pizza proof to see if it's really possible.
The problem is, it's very difficult to measure "damages that would've happened, but now won't" even if, when subtracting that from the "damages that did occur" they should probably be paying the geologist rather than the other way around.
This sort of thing happens all the time and is one of the reasons naive presidents keep push for massive spendulous bills.
6 is actually a good number of slices: you can divide it evenly amongst two or three people. With eight, you can only divide it amongst two or four people.
It's partially mitigated by differing hunger levels, but an eight-slice pizza is inadequate for dorm logic or appetites.
Huh. I always thought volume was loudness, or at least ambiguously all-encompassing and including loudness. I've always used amplitude to refer to the maximum possible instantaneous value. Interesting.
Actually, there's a very easy way to legislate this problem. Enforce the cable card option and encourage people to use 3rd party pvrs that have commercial skip features. The volume will come right back in line with the shows when everyone's video recorder is capable of perfectly filtering out ads on any channels that choose ear-splitting deltas in volume.
The main obstacle I can see at the moment is that the only real 3rd party contender at the moment appears to be Tivo, and their boxes cost more than renting a dvr from a cable company. Plus, you also have to buy the box...
Seriously though, In Europe, do the pretentious movie snobs watch imported American films as if they're all some kind of deep, meaningful works of fine art?
Yeah, but "What is thy bidding, my master?" gets pretty old after only a couple of destinations are entered, and "Your lack of faith disturbs me" is a pretty obnoxious replacement for "recalculating."
Or you could do what I do: just take the next exit and let the sat-nav figure out how to get you back on track. If it takes less than a second to do so, missing a couple streets isn't that big a deal, and there's almost certainly a lower attention-demanding route to wherever. Generally, the most complicated places are highways in traffic with left-exits and short spans.
But if you take any nearby exit, there's almost always a "street with many stoplights" that you can pretty much take your time on. Sat-nav also helps with tricky left turns on that street. Just turn right anywhere near your destination and let it recalculate a route for you.
The thing about sat nav is that it creates a new navigation paradigm. If you use it right it can really free you from worrying about where you are so you can concentrate on not hitting things. You don't have to drive straight to your destination without deviating from the route to avoid stopping and getting your bearings. Everywhere is like the areas you're familiar with, where if you miss a turn it's no big deal, you just go one of the other permutations you know all about.
Even if the machine's maps don't quite match up to reality, it's still no worse than when you're in your familiar area and you're trying out a permutation you're fuzzy on: Just turn off when it doesn't match up and get on a route that you know about. As long as you pay attention to the road, the worst thing that can happen is that it'll take longer to get where you're trying to go (unless where you're trying to go is in the middle of a block of roads that the sat-nav is not accurate on. But that's pretty rare.)
Ahh, the "government as charitable organization angle." It's clever, really. Tugs at the heartstrings.
Let me ask you though: If you're not willing to be charitable with your own money, what gives you the right to simply vote to be charitable with someone else's? People vote with their dollars as much as their signatures. Moreso, when you think about it, as your dollars give you a personal stake in the game. "charity government" is little more than a naked admission that many people care about the poor, but not enough to do anything about it.
I would avoid making any ultimatums. The problem with ultimatums is that you have to follow through, and that puts the other party in charge of your actions.
Yes, but the panels themselves will experience photon drag due to the momentum imparted upon them. Plus, quantum efficiency isn't that great. You're better off just using a material that reflects the photons at some appropriate angle to generate the desired thrust vector, for every direction except towards a star. Fortunately, orbital mechanics are such that you can get anywhere without ever thrusting towards a star, including closer to the star.
A solar-powered flashlight rocket is just an inefficient solar sail.
Flashlight rockets are extremely efficient in mass, but you need to get the energy from somewhere. I suppose if you got the energy from mass (nuclear power for instance), you'd find that the poor energy efficiency equates to poor mass efficiency.
Chemical rockets are extremely inefficient in mass, necessitating excessive expenditure of energy. Everything else is an attempt to find a compromise between the two values that minimizes the expense of a spacecraft, which is some weighted function of mass, energy, complexity, political feasibility, and a host of other factors.
Could we absorb photons coming from the sides and re-emit them out the back to give propulsion with no mass loss?
No. It is impossible to emit anything that generates thrust out the back of a spacecraft. Down is not defined until you accelerate the vessel. In space, the main engines always point down when active.
Slashdot Mirror
Bun, mostly. Cheese substitutes. The lowest grade meat they can get away with (taste wise. meat is graded on enjoyability, not food safety. If it's not safe, it's not supposed to be sold, period.). Stale pickles and lettuce. Salt. Butter substitute. ketchup and mustard.
There's nothing in there that's dangerous to eat, except that they picked items that are cheap to obtain and which have a higher salt, fat, calorie content than they ought to, since that's the most cost effective way to make it seem tasty.
The woman bore a child as part of her cover. Not saying that means there aren't damages, but clearly there are some issues there with good decision making.
I'm trying to get people to call that "Olive loaf compression."
Say what?
f(x) = 1 - x^2/2 + x^4/24 - x^6/720 + ... (where the constant diminishes rapidly, and 0<x<1)
If you know that the HOT affect the result less and less, you can drop them and still get a "good enough" though less perfect answer. You can keep dropping terms until the error is unacceptable, or in the case of something where the actual value is not critical (i.e. a block of pixels), you can keep dropping terms to reach a target number of operations and hope that the answer is sufficiently precise.
Now, in a video codec, it's probably a vector function, and it's probably not polynomial either (although any more complex functions will still be approximated with polynomials, whose number of terms would be chosen for performance reasons...). The point being that there are lots of opportunities to drop terms and save cycles (and as the compressed data itself is likely an array of coefficients, there are also opportunities to drop terms and save space at the other end) which result in lower quality output as a tradeoff.
Frankly, I'm not entirely sure whether "drop quality" ought to be preferred over "drop frames" but they're both choices on the spectrum of "making due with whacha got."
You know you have more in common, genetically speaking, with a goat than with a blue amazon from another planet. Heck, if oil comes from plant remains, you have more in common with a blow-up doll than with the ET.
Think about that when "V" v2.0 comes back on next year.
If they paid for something and didn't get it, they got screwed. That the theater recouped the ticket price is only part of their loss. They also lost time that they could've spent doing something else. We didn't all get screwed by DRM, but the people in that theater on that night did.
Points for building such a huge camera obscura. Points off for whatever issues made a photograph that huge so incredibly noisy. I suspect the exposure was too short since a pinhole camera of that size would have to be open for weeks to gather enough light to cover the canvas. Possibly light leakage from unintentional pinholes was also a problem. A photo that large should be unbelievably rich in detail or there's no point in making it, except to photograph the process of making a photograph that large.
6. Shaky cams suck, PERIOD.
True. But it lets producers get away with cheaper CG and less talented actors. It's the "Jay Leno at 10pm" production model (a.k.a. "Who cares how popular it is, it's cheap as dirt, so our markup percentage is through the roof.")
4. Robot attack formation is VERY poor
I'm sorry, I didn't realize we had people here who had extensively studied the military doctrine of asymmetrical conflict involving giant humanoid robot combined infantry/artillery. What academy do you go to for that, anyway?
Yeah, but checks are a terrible way to do this. There is no security. Just a routing number that's the same on every check, an account number that's the same on every check, and check number that probably is, but need not be, unique.
Those numbers are all that protects you from someone draining your checking account. You might as well do business by giving people your SSN (in the US) and counting on them to only take the agreed upon amount from whatever account they care to.
Checks are bad. Almost anything would be a better option. Even better-designed checks.
you're going to need auxiliary crust cylinders at intermediate radii if you want people to be able to hold a "60th slice".
Or, if regularity is not required, I suppose you could get away with some kind of chorded crust system. If sufficiently clever, everyone could get equal area pieces with no two slices being precisely the same shape. Maybe. I'm no good at solving the pizza proof to see if it's really possible.
The problem is, it's very difficult to measure "damages that would've happened, but now won't" even if, when subtracting that from the "damages that did occur" they should probably be paying the geologist rather than the other way around.
This sort of thing happens all the time and is one of the reasons naive presidents keep push for massive spendulous bills.
6 is actually a good number of slices: you can divide it evenly amongst two or three people. With eight, you can only divide it amongst two or four people.
It's partially mitigated by differing hunger levels, but an eight-slice pizza is inadequate for dorm logic or appetites.
Huh. I always thought volume was loudness, or at least ambiguously all-encompassing and including loudness. I've always used amplitude to refer to the maximum possible instantaneous value. Interesting.
It's fixed by using the volume difference as a cue for automatic commercial skip.
Actually, there's a very easy way to legislate this problem. Enforce the cable card option and encourage people to use 3rd party pvrs that have commercial skip features. The volume will come right back in line with the shows when everyone's video recorder is capable of perfectly filtering out ads on any channels that choose ear-splitting deltas in volume.
The main obstacle I can see at the moment is that the only real 3rd party contender at the moment appears to be Tivo, and their boxes cost more than renting a dvr from a cable company. Plus, you also have to buy the box...
Europeans get all their movies from the US?
Seriously though, In Europe, do the pretentious movie snobs watch imported American films as if they're all some kind of deep, meaningful works of fine art?
A good sign that a project is maturing is when someone asks for a relevant feature that makes sense, and the project says no.
That doesn't sound very mature to me.
Yeah, but "What is thy bidding, my master?" gets pretty old after only a couple of destinations are entered, and "Your lack of faith disturbs me" is a pretty obnoxious replacement for "recalculating."
Or you could do what I do: just take the next exit and let the sat-nav figure out how to get you back on track. If it takes less than a second to do so, missing a couple streets isn't that big a deal, and there's almost certainly a lower attention-demanding route to wherever. Generally, the most complicated places are highways in traffic with left-exits and short spans.
But if you take any nearby exit, there's almost always a "street with many stoplights" that you can pretty much take your time on. Sat-nav also helps with tricky left turns on that street. Just turn right anywhere near your destination and let it recalculate a route for you.
The thing about sat nav is that it creates a new navigation paradigm. If you use it right it can really free you from worrying about where you are so you can concentrate on not hitting things. You don't have to drive straight to your destination without deviating from the route to avoid stopping and getting your bearings. Everywhere is like the areas you're familiar with, where if you miss a turn it's no big deal, you just go one of the other permutations you know all about.
Even if the machine's maps don't quite match up to reality, it's still no worse than when you're in your familiar area and you're trying out a permutation you're fuzzy on: Just turn off when it doesn't match up and get on a route that you know about. As long as you pay attention to the road, the worst thing that can happen is that it'll take longer to get where you're trying to go (unless where you're trying to go is in the middle of a block of roads that the sat-nav is not accurate on. But that's pretty rare.)
Yeah, but knowing the exact date on which you'll suffer the horror of un-birth would be a terrible burden to bear.
Yes, they will. If you send humans to space without knowing how to support humans in space, you'll end up attending a lot of funerals.
Ahh, the "government as charitable organization angle." It's clever, really. Tugs at the heartstrings.
Let me ask you though: If you're not willing to be charitable with your own money, what gives you the right to simply vote to be charitable with someone else's? People vote with their dollars as much as their signatures. Moreso, when you think about it, as your dollars give you a personal stake in the game. "charity government" is little more than a naked admission that many people care about the poor, but not enough to do anything about it.
I would avoid making any ultimatums. The problem with ultimatums is that you have to follow through, and that puts the other party in charge of your actions.
Posting to get rid of accidental down-mod This comment was both funny and insightful, one of which is dangerously close to "overrated."
I favor the "leave a bowl of complimentary Derringers at the gate with a sign saying 'take one'" plan, though.
Yes, but the panels themselves will experience photon drag due to the momentum imparted upon them. Plus, quantum efficiency isn't that great. You're better off just using a material that reflects the photons at some appropriate angle to generate the desired thrust vector, for every direction except towards a star. Fortunately, orbital mechanics are such that you can get anywhere without ever thrusting towards a star, including closer to the star.
A solar-powered flashlight rocket is just an inefficient solar sail.
Flashlight rockets are extremely efficient in mass, but you need to get the energy from somewhere. I suppose if you got the energy from mass (nuclear power for instance), you'd find that the poor energy efficiency equates to poor mass efficiency.
Chemical rockets are extremely inefficient in mass, necessitating excessive expenditure of energy. Everything else is an attempt to find a compromise between the two values that minimizes the expense of a spacecraft, which is some weighted function of mass, energy, complexity, political feasibility, and a host of other factors.
Could we absorb photons coming from the sides and re-emit them out the back to give propulsion with no mass loss?
No. It is impossible to emit anything that generates thrust out the back of a spacecraft. Down is not defined until you accelerate the vessel. In space, the main engines always point down when active.