It was also slow apparently when there were many posts in a wave. You don't go releasing fundamental software like that until everything at least feels fast for the user.
Honestly, this isn't as nearly as sad as it appears, because its 'rival', OLED surpasses SED in almost every area. In fact, it could well be in EVERY area. Does anyone have any information on how SED could have been even slightly better?
OLED, when it comes of age, really is the panacea/holy grail/goal/best of all worlds when it comes to display tech (and possibly most types of lighting too).
I don't think it's too surprising so much as depressing. That there could be that many people who feel the need to use this tripe (or at least convince their bosses that they need 'protection'). How much time and energy is being wasted because of all this? A heck of a lot.
On the upside, at least it means CPUs progress faster because the people who buy these AV products will have naturally slow machines. I don't think that's good enough compensation though.
Just gonna moan about your sig, sorry. If by definition, one language is simpler, more elegant, faster yet also slightly more high level, terser, yet more powerful than another programming language, that would make it 'better' than another language given all else equal. If we accept that a language could be slightly better than another language then it stands to reason that a language could be *much* better (or indeed, much worse).
I don't really currently like or hate any language (I use c/c++ mostly, if only for the speed) as they all have their glaring faults. But in theory, and maybe in practise within 100 years, a language will be so good that it deserves to be loved, and yes, loved more so than other languages.
Exactly. There's always a balance. I think though what gets most people (including me) up in arms is the way incredibly simple software patents can be accepted, like the stupid XOR patent which may have helped kill the Amiga. These are the ones which need freedom from patenting.
It may be more pragmatic to have a line to say that above a certain level of ingenuity/complexity, a patent is granted. But how about if we go past the false dichotomy and accept that a particular patent can fall anywhere between the line of completely trivial and amazingly creative, and then reward a quality of patent accordingly? Would that be practical? Perhaps for patents which are less practical, or for which there are many rivals, the inventor can only ask for 0.01% or less of the money for a device which uses the technology (like say, USB). But for particularly creative concepts, the inventor would receive 10% or even more (it can be fixed amounts instead, not just percentages).
This idea is particularly weird for me, because I had the exact same idea but with trains about 5 years ago. In a dream.
In the dream, there were these giant monster trains that hogged many tracks and therefore had not just one tunnel underneath, but several, so that smaller trains could go *through* the larger trains, even the opposite way. You could go fractal and also have even larger trains where even the large trains go through a giant behometh train that hogs yet more train tracks.
To get even weirder still, you could have trains which move *on* giant massive things (trains or tracks) which also move.
Nice post. I'm personally excited by the emulation of traditional instruments for another reason. We can achieve sounds never heard of by emulating the acoustics mathematically, and then changing one or two parameters. It will be a real sounding instrument, but somehow wonderfully 'alien' and different. There are a whole infinitude of sounds out there that no one's heard.
Cool a completely silent motor. They should use it for cooling fans, washing machines and drills etc. Maybe the outlay is too expensive, or perhaps the running cost is higher...
This would be an ideal research ground for the philosophical testing of pain without any long term real physical consequences. I wonder if one could get used to the pain signals after a while.
So you're saying to help them learn they should think "watts per hour" while educated people and scientists say "watts"? To me, that's anti-constructive, and could actually further confuse some people by making thinking that power is like energy quantity, when it's clearly not.
If instead we educate everyone to realise the hour is already built into the watt, then that's surely the better approach. Otherwise, they're essentially saying "hour" twice.
Look at any product on the market aimed at the average person. No where will you see anything say "x watts per hour". It will always be just watts. Do you honestly think they should change that? People should learn to adapt and stick to the very reasonable convention (which makes much more sense than the alternative anyway).
Even on a pedantic level though, it's correct to say something's colder *relative* to something else, rather than as an absolute level of cold. Also bear in mind that they're talking about the sensation/feeling of cold rather than its physical makeup. On a certain level, red is best spoken about by its name rather than its wavelength. It's just a different kind of pedantic-ness, not necessarily less pedantic.
Slashdot Mirror
How about complicated software/algorithm patents which required tons of talent, time, money, energy, creativity and insight?
Going to the other extreme doesn't make it okay.
Buzzword overload.##### This email will self-destruct in 60 seconds.###########
Wow, that sounds even more evil than what Lexmark would do.
It was also slow apparently when there were many posts in a wave. You don't go releasing fundamental software like that until everything at least feels fast for the user.
Don't worry - OLED will be better, much better.
Honestly, this isn't as nearly as sad as it appears, because its 'rival', OLED surpasses SED in almost every area. In fact, it could well be in EVERY area. Does anyone have any information on how SED could have been even slightly better?
OLED, when it comes of age, really is the panacea/holy grail/goal/best of all worlds when it comes to display tech (and possibly most types of lighting too).
I don't think it's too surprising so much as depressing. That there could be that many people who feel the need to use this tripe (or at least convince their bosses that they need 'protection'). How much time and energy is being wasted because of all this? A heck of a lot.
On the upside, at least it means CPUs progress faster because the people who buy these AV products will have naturally slow machines. I don't think that's good enough compensation though.
I think we need the minerals that non-distilled water provides. At least that's what I remember hearing.
I know too much distilled water is bad for you, but it does taste much different from mineral water? Is it really like drinking 'nothing'?
And if we did, are we talking about 2x speed returns very roughly, or even up to 20x?
Hear hear! I would do exactly the same without some ultra-dodecaphonic surround sound speakers.
I assume "not easy" would also mean solvable by a deterministic turing machine in exponential time.
Just because it's ahem, 'natural', doesn't mean it's good. You may not care, but I'd love to see the future thanks.
It's a bit like asking what's wrong with my monitor dying within a month. Why should it last forever?
Just gonna moan about your sig, sorry. If by definition, one language is simpler, more elegant, faster yet also slightly more high level, terser, yet more powerful than another programming language, that would make it 'better' than another language given all else equal. If we accept that a language could be slightly better than another language then it stands to reason that a language could be *much* better (or indeed, much worse).
I don't really currently like or hate any language (I use c/c++ mostly, if only for the speed) as they all have their glaring faults. But in theory, and maybe in practise within 100 years, a language will be so good that it deserves to be loved, and yes, loved more so than other languages.
Exactly. There's always a balance. I think though what gets most people (including me) up in arms is the way incredibly simple software patents can be accepted, like the stupid XOR patent which may have helped kill the Amiga. These are the ones which need freedom from patenting.
It may be more pragmatic to have a line to say that above a certain level of ingenuity/complexity, a patent is granted. But how about if we go past the false dichotomy and accept that a particular patent can fall anywhere between the line of completely trivial and amazingly creative, and then reward a quality of patent accordingly? Would that be practical? Perhaps for patents which are less practical, or for which there are many rivals, the inventor can only ask for 0.01% or less of the money for a device which uses the technology (like say, USB). But for particularly creative concepts, the inventor would receive 10% or even more (it can be fixed amounts instead, not just percentages).
This idea is particularly weird for me, because I had the exact same idea but with trains about 5 years ago. In a dream.
In the dream, there were these giant monster trains that hogged many tracks and therefore had not just one tunnel underneath, but several, so that smaller trains could go *through* the larger trains, even the opposite way. You could go fractal and also have even larger trains where even the large trains go through a giant behometh train that hogs yet more train tracks.
To get even weirder still, you could have trains which move *on* giant massive things (trains or tracks) which also move.
Yes, my imagination can be weird sometimes.
Strong thin glass is nice. But so is anti-reflective glass. Apparently, some CRTs are better in this way than almost all LCDs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube#Superior_Anti-Glare_coatings
You'd honestly think there'd be more of a market for antiglare coats.
Nice post. I'm personally excited by the emulation of traditional instruments for another reason. We can achieve sounds never heard of by emulating the acoustics mathematically, and then changing one or two parameters. It will be a real sounding instrument, but somehow wonderfully 'alien' and different. There are a whole infinitude of sounds out there that no one's heard.
You don't even need webhosting or an FTP client if you use EasyPHP - just go through localhost in your browser:
http://www.easyphp.org/
Otherwise it's a pig to keep reuploading to test for bugs etc.
Cool a completely silent motor. They should use it for cooling fans, washing machines and drills etc. Maybe the outlay is too expensive, or perhaps the running cost is higher...
No, I meant the latter. Qualia and all that.
This would be an ideal research ground for the philosophical testing of pain without any long term real physical consequences. I wonder if one could get used to the pain signals after a while.
So you're saying to help them learn they should think "watts per hour" while educated people and scientists say "watts"? To me, that's anti-constructive, and could actually further confuse some people by making thinking that power is like energy quantity, when it's clearly not.
If instead we educate everyone to realise the hour is already built into the watt, then that's surely the better approach. Otherwise, they're essentially saying "hour" twice.
Look at any product on the market aimed at the average person. No where will you see anything say "x watts per hour". It will always be just watts. Do you honestly think they should change that? People should learn to adapt and stick to the very reasonable convention (which makes much more sense than the alternative anyway).
Even on a pedantic level though, it's correct to say something's colder *relative* to something else, rather than as an absolute level of cold. Also bear in mind that they're talking about the sensation/feeling of cold rather than its physical makeup. On a certain level, red is best spoken about by its name rather than its wavelength. It's just a different kind of pedantic-ness, not necessarily less pedantic.
That sounds interesting. Can you give the associated speeds that those things separate phenomena start to occur at?