Hardly anyone dies once they are in space. The only example is Soyuz 11, where a valve opened at the wrong time and got stuck. So build in some redundancy when you make valves.
spacesuits also protect against radiation, extreme termperature, and small micrometeorioids.
Great. If you have radiation or temperature problems in your spaceship, you're doing it wrong. Shielding for micrometeoroids is also best added to the spaceship, rather than to something the astronauts have to wear.
Space suits are bulky and annoying. All they protect you against is loss of pressure; they can't provide any protection worth mentioning against impact or fire. So what exactly is the point?
Honestly who needs blueray when dvd is more than good enough and when it is on a computer even dvd quality is just icing.
I could not disagree more. The low quality of DVD distracts from watching the movie. The resolution itself is bad enough, but the encoding artifacts are extra annoying.
With an analog TV you have a bit of noise to hide the problems, but there is no such "luck" on modern TV sets.
how many people are succesfully playing BluRay discs on Linux machines?
Practically no one. However, if you ask how many play downloaded or sneaker-net-shared BluRay rips, that is a much higher number. Content protection is pretty much worthless as long as mass file sharing is easy.
Every little step is only a little step. Every little step can be circumvented. But the walls ARE closing in and have been for decades. Don't think it won't continue, and get harder and harder.
I still sometimes wish on Linux I could "nice" processes with absolute priorities
You can, you just need to use the realtime priorities instead. However, you need privileges to do so because it is trivial to crash Linux that way. Just like it was trivial to crash AmigaOS that way, of course.
The scientific way to find out is to pick a random month and watch all the movies released in that month as defined by IMDB. So, where shall we meet? I'll try to bring popcorn for the 1000 hour session:)
Yes you can, and for you it makes a lot of sense. For most couples, 2 x 109 movie tickets would be enough for at least a decade. (Yes that is less than one trip to the movies a month).
The intersection of people who can find $6500 (generally not students) and people who go to the theatre 109 times within the space of perhaps 6 years is rather small. Even smaller when you exclude the people who go to the theatre precisely to get out of their home:)
I still think you are underestimating how many crap low budget movies are made, and I am also a bit loathe to accept a $20 million movie as "low budget".
E.g. have you watched Titanic II? That certainly qualifies but it's crap. The four Tremors movies? Perhaps the first one is a stretch at $11 million, but the others certainly qualify. I found those great, but hardly an epitome of wonderful acting.
IMDB has 7,014 feature films from 2010 (I avoided 2011 as some of them weren't actually released yet). Most of them must be low budget; there just isn't enough money in the industry for even a thousand $20M+ movies a year. Half of them don't even have a rating listed in the overview.
My view is still the same: There are many more excellent low budget movies than there are excellent high budget movies, but it is because there are so many more low budget movies than high budget movies.
We are talking about a theatre. At home, with a 3m distance to the screen, you can certainly make things appear "behind" the screen. In the theatre you can too, but only in the same way that we always did, by using perspective and other 2D cues. If, in a theatre, you place everything "behind" the screen, you have just gone back to 2D.
You seem to have read some report on how 3D TV/Movies work, misunderstood it, and decided that misunderstood hearsay trumps first hand physical evidence.
You keep talking out of your ass while repeating that line.
It would be trivial to upgrade 45C water to e.g. 60C with a heat pump. This could be done with high efficiency, certainly COP > 3. Of course an office building might not need that much hot water in summer (maybe for showers for those who bike to work?), but other buildings nearby might. Or use it for district heating, if they have that in the area, but with existing systems that would probably require more like 70C.
Or just get the CPU's running at 300C, of course. Then you could run a steam turbine on the coolant...
Obviously the screen is the same distance away. They project with a large parallax so that you see the 3D effect and people "jump out" of the screen at you. If they chose to go with a smaller parallax so objects "stayed behind" the screen, our vision would be unable to detect the small parallax and the 3D effect would disappear.
You seem to have read some report on how 3D TV/Movies work, misunderstood it, and decided that misunderstood hearsay trumps first hand physical evidence.
Take a look at the 50 most expensive movies list. I bet you will have watched 10% of them, more likely 30% or more. That means that even if $100M movies manage to be 5% excellent, you will still have watched a lot of crap.
On the other hand, lots of people make dirt cheap movies with VERY limited audiences. You'll watch very few of them, since they will only get a large audience if they are extremely good. So despite the fact that they are mostly crap, the ones that you actually get to see will have a high proportion of excellent movies.
Human vision only uses stereopsis when the difference in angle is quite large. At longer range we do 2D-to-3D interpolation, just like we do with one eye shut.
$6500/$60 is 109 movies though. For most people that just does not make financial sense, the $6500 investment would not be able to pay itself back in saved theatre tickets. Obviously the economy is better if you generally have more people watching, and worse if you have to include buying or renting movies.
Most people are better off paying the $30 each time.
3d only works for objects that are quite close to you. If you "placed" the objects in the movie behind the screen, there would be hardly any 3d effect.
60 hz in a CRT is not tolerable, unless you live in a country where the room lights are a significantly different frequency so they don't strobe together.
Non-flickering lights don't help. 60Hz CRT is just hopeless.
Strobing lights should be a thing of the past though. Fluorescent tubes and LEDs flicker at 10kHz or more these days, good luck detecting that. Traditional light bulbs will flicker a bit, but the temperature should stay constant enough for it to not be much of a problem.
It's like there's some kind of rule that any budget over $100M automatically means plot, characterization and acting goes right out the window.
You are unlikely to watch more than a tiny proportion of $100k movies. Most are crap, but the filter between you and them is probably very very good. In comparison, you will probably watch at least 10% of $100M movies, and that filter just isn't strong enough to avoid crap. That is why you have better luck with $100k movies than with $100M movies, even though $100M movies are much better on average.
Except maybe for when it hits TV with its 30 fps frame rate.
Traditional TV is 480i60 or so in the US. Hitting that from a 48fps source will be somewhat interesting, but anyone watching 480i probably don't care how bad you make the quality anyway.
The plan for the Blu Ray is to do 1080p24 apparently. Broadcasters with sense would do 720p50 or 1080i50. No one sane would try for 1080i60 or 720p60.
They don't NEED to, but they fortunately choose to anyway. They could easily just show the same frame over and over, but instead they take an educated guess at the intermediate frames.
Some people like the slide show that is 24fps, so most TV's have a way to turn it off.
And Ada doesn't support tail recursion for the simple reason that well written software shouldn't need recursion. Additionally it's actually terribly inefficient, Ada was also meant for embedded systems. Do you realise what happens every time you call a function? Your processor puts the program counter and other registers on the stack and then jumps to the function call.
When a language supports "tail recursion" that actually means it does "tail recursion elimination". Which means that the processor does NOT put anything on the stack per iteration. There is nothing inefficient about tail recursion when the language supports it.
I'd say in terms of readability it might actually be ranked below SPARC assembly (and that's not a compliment).
What do you have against SPARC assembly? It is an extremely straightforward three-address instruction set without complications. The only slightly challening part is register windows. It is by far my favourite instruction set to write for (admittedly I don't really write assembler anymore...)
Now PA-RISC on the other hand... Luckily that is dead.
Slashdot Mirror
Hardly anyone dies once they are in space. The only example is Soyuz 11, where a valve opened at the wrong time and got stuck. So build in some redundancy when you make valves.
spacesuits also protect against radiation, extreme termperature, and small micrometeorioids.
Great. If you have radiation or temperature problems in your spaceship, you're doing it wrong. Shielding for micrometeoroids is also best added to the spaceship, rather than to something the astronauts have to wear.
Space suits are bulky and annoying. All they protect you against is loss of pressure; they can't provide any protection worth mentioning against impact or fire. So what exactly is the point?
Honestly who needs blueray when dvd is more than good enough and when it is on a computer even dvd quality is just icing.
I could not disagree more. The low quality of DVD distracts from watching the movie. The resolution itself is bad enough, but the encoding artifacts are extra annoying.
With an analog TV you have a bit of noise to hide the problems, but there is no such "luck" on modern TV sets.
how many people are succesfully playing BluRay discs on Linux machines?
Practically no one. However, if you ask how many play downloaded or sneaker-net-shared BluRay rips, that is a much higher number. Content protection is pretty much worthless as long as mass file sharing is easy.
Every little step is only a little step. Every little step can be circumvented. But the walls ARE closing in and have been for decades. Don't think it won't continue, and get harder and harder.
You are completely right.
I still sometimes wish on Linux I could "nice" processes with absolute priorities
You can, you just need to use the realtime priorities instead. However, you need privileges to do so because it is trivial to crash Linux that way. Just like it was trivial to crash AmigaOS that way, of course.
The scientific way to find out is to pick a random month and watch all the movies released in that month as defined by IMDB. So, where shall we meet? I'll try to bring popcorn for the 1000 hour session :)
Yes you can, and for you it makes a lot of sense. For most couples, 2 x 109 movie tickets would be enough for at least a decade. (Yes that is less than one trip to the movies a month).
The intersection of people who can find $6500 (generally not students) and people who go to the theatre 109 times within the space of perhaps 6 years is rather small. Even smaller when you exclude the people who go to the theatre precisely to get out of their home :)
I still think you are underestimating how many crap low budget movies are made, and I am also a bit loathe to accept a $20 million movie as "low budget".
E.g. have you watched Titanic II? That certainly qualifies but it's crap. The four Tremors movies? Perhaps the first one is a stretch at $11 million, but the others certainly qualify. I found those great, but hardly an epitome of wonderful acting.
IMDB has 7,014 feature films from 2010 (I avoided 2011 as some of them weren't actually released yet). Most of them must be low budget; there just isn't enough money in the industry for even a thousand $20M+ movies a year. Half of them don't even have a rating listed in the overview.
My view is still the same: There are many more excellent low budget movies than there are excellent high budget movies, but it is because there are so many more low budget movies than high budget movies.
We are talking about a theatre. At home, with a 3m distance to the screen, you can certainly make things appear "behind" the screen. In the theatre you can too, but only in the same way that we always did, by using perspective and other 2D cues. If, in a theatre, you place everything "behind" the screen, you have just gone back to 2D.
You seem to have read some report on how 3D TV/Movies work, misunderstood it, and decided that misunderstood hearsay trumps first hand physical evidence.
You keep talking out of your ass while repeating that line.
It would be trivial to upgrade 45C water to e.g. 60C with a heat pump. This could be done with high efficiency, certainly COP > 3. Of course an office building might not need that much hot water in summer (maybe for showers for those who bike to work?), but other buildings nearby might. Or use it for district heating, if they have that in the area, but with existing systems that would probably require more like 70C.
Or just get the CPU's running at 300C, of course. Then you could run a steam turbine on the coolant...
Search for "free cooling" and you will get the answers for your questions.
Obviously the screen is the same distance away. They project with a large parallax so that you see the 3D effect and people "jump out" of the screen at you. If they chose to go with a smaller parallax so objects "stayed behind" the screen, our vision would be unable to detect the small parallax and the 3D effect would disappear.
You seem to have read some report on how 3D TV/Movies work, misunderstood it, and decided that misunderstood hearsay trumps first hand physical evidence.
Very mature.
Take a look at the 50 most expensive movies list. I bet you will have watched 10% of them, more likely 30% or more. That means that even if $100M movies manage to be 5% excellent, you will still have watched a lot of crap.
On the other hand, lots of people make dirt cheap movies with VERY limited audiences. You'll watch very few of them, since they will only get a large audience if they are extremely good. So despite the fact that they are mostly crap, the ones that you actually get to see will have a high proportion of excellent movies.
Human vision only uses stereopsis when the difference in angle is quite large. At longer range we do 2D-to-3D interpolation, just like we do with one eye shut.
$6500/$60 is 109 movies though. For most people that just does not make financial sense, the $6500 investment would not be able to pay itself back in saved theatre tickets. Obviously the economy is better if you generally have more people watching, and worse if you have to include buying or renting movies.
Most people are better off paying the $30 each time.
3d only works for objects that are quite close to you. If you "placed" the objects in the movie behind the screen, there would be hardly any 3d effect.
60 hz in a CRT is not tolerable, unless you live in a country where the room lights are a significantly different frequency so they don't strobe together.
Non-flickering lights don't help. 60Hz CRT is just hopeless.
Strobing lights should be a thing of the past though. Fluorescent tubes and LEDs flicker at 10kHz or more these days, good luck detecting that. Traditional light bulbs will flicker a bit, but the temperature should stay constant enough for it to not be much of a problem.
It's like there's some kind of rule that any budget over $100M automatically means plot, characterization and acting goes right out the window.
You are unlikely to watch more than a tiny proportion of $100k movies. Most are crap, but the filter between you and them is probably very very good. In comparison, you will probably watch at least 10% of $100M movies, and that filter just isn't strong enough to avoid crap. That is why you have better luck with $100k movies than with $100M movies, even though $100M movies are much better on average.
Except maybe for when it hits TV with its 30 fps frame rate.
Traditional TV is 480i60 or so in the US. Hitting that from a 48fps source will be somewhat interesting, but anyone watching 480i probably don't care how bad you make the quality anyway.
The plan for the Blu Ray is to do 1080p24 apparently. Broadcasters with sense would do 720p50 or 1080i50. No one sane would try for 1080i60 or 720p60.
Modern TV's don't need to upsample...
They don't NEED to, but they fortunately choose to anyway. They could easily just show the same frame over and over, but instead they take an educated guess at the intermediate frames.
Some people like the slide show that is 24fps, so most TV's have a way to turn it off.
Ah right, it's the Sun assembler not the instruction set you don't like :) That makes a lot more sense.
I am not sure what you mean by missing symbols and confusing naming. Coming from MC 68k at the time, SPARC assembler was a great leap forward.
99 bottles of beer in PA-RISC
Torvald's is carrying out the unproductive one.
Your so-called productive approach has been entirely unproductive for more than a decade. It is way past time to say "fuck you".
And Ada doesn't support tail recursion for the simple reason that well written software shouldn't need recursion. Additionally it's actually terribly inefficient, Ada was also meant for embedded systems. Do you realise what happens every time you call a function? Your processor puts the program counter and other registers on the stack and then jumps to the function call.
When a language supports "tail recursion" that actually means it does "tail recursion elimination". Which means that the processor does NOT put anything on the stack per iteration. There is nothing inefficient about tail recursion when the language supports it.
I'd say in terms of readability it might actually be ranked below SPARC assembly (and that's not a compliment).
What do you have against SPARC assembly? It is an extremely straightforward three-address instruction set without complications. The only slightly challening part is register windows. It is by far my favourite instruction set to write for (admittedly I don't really write assembler anymore...)
Now PA-RISC on the other hand... Luckily that is dead.