I wonder how it compares with that 'NeverWet' or Rain X stuff. Apparently, the contact angle of the former for a drop of water is around 160-175 degrees (close to perfect 180), but may have problems with durability (and is pervious to solvents, detergents, soap and high pressure water). The latter - Rain X - is already in commercial use, namely for car windscreens, but only has a contact angle of 110 degrees, so isn't superhydrophobic.
You're looking at what chess is rather than what it could be. If we randomized the start positions of each piece, or had more pieces/squares, the problem would vanish, or at least lose its sting.
I think what you've just said sums up the attitude lots of people have in moving towards new standards. People are short-sighted and don't like change, even if it's for the better (or much better). For me, the temporary hard work towards progress would be exciting, rewarding and (as in the case of 'metrication') obviously for the better.
This quote from the article sums it up quite nicely:
In fact, use of leaded gasoline varied widely among states, and this gave Reyes the opening she needed. If childhood lead exposure really did produce criminal behavior in adults, you'd expect that in states where consumption of leaded gasoline declined slowly, crime would decline slowly too. Conversely, in states where it declined quickly, crime would decline quickly. And that's exactly what she found.
This is why I continue to think that experiments should be performed on half the states at a time, especially if we're not sure about something. For example, the idea to drop working hours to 50-75% of what we have is a 'risky' plan, but could make people much happier. So we try it out on half (or some fraction of) the states. Another idea is to try fluoride in water at 0.1ppm, 1ppm, 2ppm. Similar experiments can be used for chlorine or ozone (I'm not making any judgements on those or saying that conclusions haven't already been reached by the way).
By experimenting on half (or some fraction of) the states like this, we create a kind of 'evolution', where we can filter out bad ideas, and keep good ones. Or at least more likely be able to do so.
Well who decides what is badly designed and what isn't?
Well you've just decided that the English language is (somewhat) bad. And as a speaker myself, I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you. Yes, given enough time, that will change, and I bet we'll also scrap DST, and even switch to base 8, 12 or 16 for our number system within the next half-millennium.
Organizations such as FCC and IEEE also decide standards, and they do a good job for the most part. We build standards based on reason and consensus, and saying "we'll disagree all the time and nothing will get done, so we should just not bother" is just sad.
Just like latency in software, and the internet, the effects are insidiously hidden, since they underpin a lot. Teaching metric helps kids to understand the concepts much more easily, and experts may be 'comfortable' with imperial, but they don't really know what they're missing by switching completely to metric. Apart from that, it saves a lot of time converting too.
Would calculating very large numbers in Pascal's triangle be useful for you or others at least? If so, I might get that in for the next version too (currently it's just: row! / (index! * (row-index)! ).
If you won't accept any reward money, then at least email me, and I'll send you a link for the full version. If you wish of course - not sure if it's gone up in your estimation since 'crappy';)
No it's for indoors. I like something which is a little less cave-like than most people.
Quite a few household CFLs give are 65W or higher (I saw one at a gigantic 200W which must be about 10000 lumen). Yes, they're quite big. I was hoping the LED tech would be competing by now.
White is white, and so a 6500k (or thereabouts) colour temperature is desired for the LCD backlight (being close to the colour of the sun). If you have a problem with the screen displaying a screen which is too bluish, then how hard is it adjust the colour settings on your PC? You can adjust it to bluish for daytime, and yellowish for nighttime. In fact, there's an app to do just that: http://stereopsis.com/flux
Can you get standard light fitting LED bulbs which put out the equivalent of more like 5000 lumen? I'd love something to replace my 60W CFL bulb (that's actual watt not equivalent).
At 200 lumens per watt, that would work out to a 25w LED bulb.
I recently had a promotion where I offered cash for bugs just like the one you've pointed out. Do you have Paypal, and I'll send some to you ($15 for that one). If you find more, I'll happily pay more.
I have over a thousand 'litmus' test sums, but I can't test every single possibility for obvious reasons.
If you're sitting in one place all the time, then you're not even taking advantage of your 'true 3D' stage. Moreover, everyone in the audience will see a different film to everyone else.
No, the true future of 3D is what we have now, but tweaked and refined so that 3D objects don't often intrude beyond the front of the screen (there's a gimmick we can well do without). Combine that with a decent frame rate, and a more enveloping view (bigger screen horizontally AND vertically) and then we can talk.
My brother had a nervous breakdown recently. He was agnostic before, but now believes in two gods, one female and one male. He's otherwise highly intelligent by the way. He 'knows' (just like you) God is real because he speaks to him/her, and 'feels' he's there, like some kind of spirit within his own mind. It's an illusion however.
This is of course where science comes in. The mind is susceptible to distortions, and misrepresentation of reality, especially when it comes to the supernatural. You sound like another victim unfortunately.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how it compares with that 'NeverWet' or Rain X stuff. Apparently, the contact angle of the former for a drop of water is around 160-175 degrees (close to perfect 180), but may have problems with durability (and is pervious to solvents, detergents, soap and high pressure water). The latter - Rain X - is already in commercial use, namely for car windscreens, but only has a contact angle of 110 degrees, so isn't superhydrophobic.
I refer to my earlier post which gave these stats:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2813771&cid=39813937
So do you think he was biased towards C# or Java?
You're looking at what chess is rather than what it could be. If we randomized the start positions of each piece, or had more pieces/squares, the problem would vanish, or at least lose its sting.
Is it because of imperfections in the bulk material that make them less strong than what's apparent at the molecular level?
Wouldn't the pirates just downscale the content to 1080p? - I doubt the viewers/pirates would mind much.
I think what you've just said sums up the attitude lots of people have in moving towards new standards. People are short-sighted and don't like change, even if it's for the better (or much better). For me, the temporary hard work towards progress would be exciting, rewarding and (as in the case of 'metrication') obviously for the better.
That's just bolts. And even there, I would say those should be standardized too. Why can't we all just get along?
I reminds me of using base 60 over base 10. Typing must be awkward though.
In fact, use of leaded gasoline varied widely among states, and this gave Reyes the opening she needed. If childhood lead exposure really did produce criminal behavior in adults, you'd expect that in states where consumption of leaded gasoline declined slowly, crime would decline slowly too. Conversely, in states where it declined quickly, crime would decline quickly. And that's exactly what she found.
This is why I continue to think that experiments should be performed on half the states at a time, especially if we're not sure about something. For example, the idea to drop working hours to 50-75% of what we have is a 'risky' plan, but could make people much happier. So we try it out on half (or some fraction of) the states. Another idea is to try fluoride in water at 0.1ppm, 1ppm, 2ppm. Similar experiments can be used for chlorine or ozone (I'm not making any judgements on those or saying that conclusions haven't already been reached by the way).
By experimenting on half (or some fraction of) the states like this, we create a kind of 'evolution', where we can filter out bad ideas, and keep good ones. Or at least more likely be able to do so.
Well who decides what is badly designed and what isn't?
Well you've just decided that the English language is (somewhat) bad. And as a speaker myself, I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you. Yes, given enough time, that will change, and I bet we'll also scrap DST, and even switch to base 8, 12 or 16 for our number system within the next half-millennium.
Organizations such as FCC and IEEE also decide standards, and they do a good job for the most part. We build standards based on reason and consensus, and saying "we'll disagree all the time and nothing will get done, so we should just not bother" is just sad.
Just like latency in software, and the internet, the effects are insidiously hidden, since they underpin a lot. Teaching metric helps kids to understand the concepts much more easily, and experts may be 'comfortable' with imperial, but they don't really know what they're missing by switching completely to metric. Apart from that, it saves a lot of time converting too.
I use 'turns' in trig most of the time and am trying to encourage people to do the same. Compare:
' Trig based on radians
sin(0) = 0
sin(1/8*2pi) = 0.70710678
sin(2/8*2pi) '1/4 turn = 1
sin(3/8*2pi) = 0.70710678
sin(4/8*2pi) '1/2 turn = 0
' Turn based trig (much better for many apps)
tsin(0) = 0
tsin(1/8) = 0.70710678
tsin(2/8) '1/4 turn = 1
tsin(3/8) = 0.70710678
tsin(4/8) '1/2 turn = 0
The system itself is far from arbitrary, and makes a lot more sense than imperial. It *is* better - you don't need to put quotes round it.
Ultimate weapon?
and there is a noticeable delay when switching tabs
Are you talking about latency here, or the "building up of the page" due to limited CPU power?
If it's latency, then....... urghhhh.
Would calculating very large numbers in Pascal's triangle be useful for you or others at least? If so, I might get that in for the next version too (currently it's just: row! / (index! * (row-index)! ).
;)
If you won't accept any reward money, then at least email me, and I'll send you a link for the full version. If you wish of course - not sure if it's gone up in your estimation since 'crappy'
This 85watt CFL for example gives off 5400 lumens:
http://www.megamanuk.com/products/cfl-lamps/clusterlite/integrated-ballast/871691/
And the 100watt version apparently gives off 6700 lumen.
No it's for indoors. I like something which is a little less cave-like than most people. Quite a few household CFLs give are 65W or higher (I saw one at a gigantic 200W which must be about 10000 lumen). Yes, they're quite big. I was hoping the LED tech would be competing by now.
White is white, and so a 6500k (or thereabouts) colour temperature is desired for the LCD backlight (being close to the colour of the sun). If you have a problem with the screen displaying a screen which is too bluish, then how hard is it adjust the colour settings on your PC? You can adjust it to bluish for daytime, and yellowish for nighttime. In fact, there's an app to do just that: http://stereopsis.com/flux
Can you get standard light fitting LED bulbs which put out the equivalent of more like 5000 lumen? I'd love something to replace my 60W CFL bulb (that's actual watt not equivalent). At 200 lumens per watt, that would work out to a 25w LED bulb.
I recently had a promotion where I offered cash for bugs just like the one you've pointed out. Do you have Paypal, and I'll send some to you ($15 for that one). If you find more, I'll happily pay more.
I have over a thousand 'litmus' test sums, but I can't test every single possibility for obvious reasons.
136.4 degrees is 58 degrees Celsius
(courtesy of the program in my sig's link).
If you're sitting in one place all the time, then you're not even taking advantage of your 'true 3D' stage. Moreover, everyone in the audience will see a different film to everyone else.
No, the true future of 3D is what we have now, but tweaked and refined so that 3D objects don't often intrude beyond the front of the screen (there's a gimmick we can well do without). Combine that with a decent frame rate, and a more enveloping view (bigger screen horizontally AND vertically) and then we can talk.
My brother had a nervous breakdown recently. He was agnostic before, but now believes in two gods, one female and one male. He's otherwise highly intelligent by the way. He 'knows' (just like you) God is real because he speaks to him/her, and 'feels' he's there, like some kind of spirit within his own mind. It's an illusion however.
This is of course where science comes in. The mind is susceptible to distortions, and misrepresentation of reality, especially when it comes to the supernatural. You sound like another victim unfortunately.
Not posting anon can be useful because you receive an email when someone's replied to your post.
As for your post, there is justification in the scary fire/brimstone hell, especially since Jesus himself seems to like talking about it an awful lot.