Interesting. If it could be slowed down to say, 0.0001 mph or less, there could be some really useful apps. Interesting, as it would be a way of storing energy inside an object. What a strange kind of battery that would be.
Is it theoretically possible to slow down light enough so that it takes a day, month or even a year or two to arrive at the other end of a material? This way you can have a time machine from the past, or use free lighting from the daytime, but at night.
I agree that it's very hard to define scientifically, because it's such a subjective sensation. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist in a very real sense though. The subject of qualia generally is a giant philosophical beast that has had the best minds in massive amounts of confusion, so it's no wonder we're struggling on such simple ideas.
No, I am well aware that the same wavelength could produce different end sensations to different people. For all we know, the red wavelength may end up looking like blue to someone else, and there would be no way to know for sure, such is the nature of qualia.
I still think however that activating the L eye cone muddies up whatever the M cone is seeing. Thus red would be polluting green, making us never see true green under most normal circumstances.
Just because the sensation of 'red' isn't scientifically defined, that doesn't mean it is arbitrary. Sure, red might be a little more orangish to you, and might mean a little more crimson to me. But that doesn't mean that the 'absolute pure red colour' doesn't exist in a very real sense. It would have no green pollution (to make it orangey), or blue pollution (to make it crimson-ey).
Even though many nearby wavelengths trigger a particular cone, that doesn't mean the cone sends a range of colours to the brain. I still think that each cone represents and sends a pure primary colour, specifically red, green and blue for L, M and S. I'm talking about the final sensation here, rather than any intermediate signals such as preliminary wavelengths.
Because all light of a single wavelength is automatically "pure"; it doesn't matter what your cone responses are.
I guess I might say the reverse; that the wavelength, although scientifically measureable, is in fact less important in many ways, and it's the final sensation that matters (even though it's much harder scientifically to extract info on).
Your cone responses are such that they overlap (for good reason), but that doesn't keep you from seeing pure colors.
Because of the experiment I mentioned in my original post, I suspect that the cone response from the L cone still adds red pollution, which detracts from any potential pure colour. Again the only way to know for sure is to test different combinations of disabling L/M/S eye cones. I couldn't find information of such seemingly obvious experiments from what research I did a while back, despite its massive importance to the whole topic.
That's my point though. How can a apx 515nm wavelength be a fully saturated green if the L cone is also being activated to some degree? That would be the extra pollution I'm talking about. I believe a much purer green would result if you somehow disabled the L cone. Unless you think we might see a more cyan/blue-like hue here?
To get a definitive answer, I would be interested to see what one would experience if you disabled two of the three S/M/L cones. I'm suspecting you would see pure red (disable S+M), green (disable S+L) and blue (M+L). Any research into that?
Parent is correct. Any colours around green and cyan are usually terribly unsaturated on most monitors. In fact, even in 'real life', it isn't theoretically possible to experience true cyan/aqua because the nearest direct wavelength will stimulate the red eye cone to some extent creating colour pollution.
There is a trick around this, which can be found by over-saturating the red cone. This weakens it temporarily, and then when shortly afterwards you see anything resembling cyan, it will appear as close to the true qualia as you could ever expect. The "Eclipse of Mars" illusion that follows in the below link demonstrates this for those who are curious:
I think people have kept with hard drives for so long because they were so noisy and slow. Now they're getting quieter or even silent, SSDs have become more attractive.
It's dumb. Like those people re-implementing standard library functions. It's unprofessional and inefficient.
I thought that too until I found the bottleneck that is converting from float to int using (int) casting. I found the following to be multiple times faster:
Rather than cranking up the GHz of each core to obtain more speed, I wish they'd concentrate on keeping it cool. I hate the fan noise, and multicore was a way around that because it rarely heats up with standard usage. Hence less or no cooling required.
"We've got to find some way to get that fan to rotate to annoy the users... ah I have a cunning plan..."
I wonder what Windows 7/XP would be like if it never bothered running any of its own tasks (while supposedly nothing was happening), and never bothered accessing the HD (which is always flickering).
Annoying latencies would be a thing of the past, and you could code a realtime app on it like you would need. I bet there would hardly be any disadvantages.
Is this a problem with Ogg, or the media players implementations? Could this even theoretically be fixed with Ogg in its current state?
Afaik, usually, codecs have something called 'key frames' where the lower the step for each key frame, the quicker it is for the user to seek to any particular part of the video. The extreme case would be to have each frame as a key frame. This should allow instant random access of the video, but the resulting filesize will be bigger.
It's also more logical than the alternative. I'll never forgive the language for making us use commas inside quotes when obviously they belong outside.
I don't like anti-virus software and wouldn't dream of using anything Like Mcafee or Norton, but how is it a fail if they're willing to admit guilt and even PAY for any damages incurred?
Luckily, a lot of people have some kind of moral system, which would allow them to purchase digital goods providing they were a: good quality, b: suitably cheap (i.e. unlike Photoshop), and c: had no DRM attached (i.e. unlike stuff from Ubisoft).
I am one of those customers that you're talking about. On the contrary, I hope they make aspect ratios in the region of 10:1. Yes, 10 times wider than deep. This way, you get excellent periphery vision, and a much greater sense of realism. In the future, the monitor can wrap around in a semi-circular curve.
I wonder what he would think of Chess and Go, two examples of non-video games which have an incredible amount of subtlety to them, probably much more than many so-called art 'masterpieces' out there. From simple rules, come profoundly complex gameplay.
Even some video games have at least a degree of this kind of complexity. Examples include maybe Settlers/Populous, Lemmings (original), and Speedball 2. To a lesser extent, Stunt Car Racer, Outrun, Strider, and even good old Asteroids or Pacman.
(Sorry the latest games don't do it for me, though I haven't looked properly tbh, so I'm sure there are a few gems.)
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. If it could be slowed down to say, 0.0001 mph or less, there could be some really useful apps. Interesting, as it would be a way of storing energy inside an object. What a strange kind of battery that would be.
Is it theoretically possible to slow down light enough so that it takes a day, month or even a year or two to arrive at the other end of a material? This way you can have a time machine from the past, or use free lighting from the daytime, but at night.
If not, then how would you define green?
I agree that it's very hard to define scientifically, because it's such a subjective sensation. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist in a very real sense though. The subject of qualia generally is a giant philosophical beast that has had the best minds in massive amounts of confusion, so it's no wonder we're struggling on such simple ideas.
No, I am well aware that the same wavelength could produce different end sensations to different people. For all we know, the red wavelength may end up looking like blue to someone else, and there would be no way to know for sure, such is the nature of qualia.
I still think however that activating the L eye cone muddies up whatever the M cone is seeing. Thus red would be polluting green, making us never see true green under most normal circumstances.
Just because the sensation of 'red' isn't scientifically defined, that doesn't mean it is arbitrary. Sure, red might be a little more orangish to you, and might mean a little more crimson to me. But that doesn't mean that the 'absolute pure red colour' doesn't exist in a very real sense. It would have no green pollution (to make it orangey), or blue pollution (to make it crimson-ey).
Even though many nearby wavelengths trigger a particular cone, that doesn't mean the cone sends a range of colours to the brain. I still think that each cone represents and sends a pure primary colour, specifically red, green and blue for L, M and S. I'm talking about the final sensation here, rather than any intermediate signals such as preliminary wavelengths.
Because all light of a single wavelength is automatically "pure"; it doesn't matter what your cone responses are.
I guess I might say the reverse; that the wavelength, although scientifically measureable, is in fact less important in many ways, and it's the final sensation that matters (even though it's much harder scientifically to extract info on).
Your cone responses are such that they overlap (for good reason), but that doesn't keep you from seeing pure colors.
Because of the experiment I mentioned in my original post, I suspect that the cone response from the L cone still adds red pollution, which detracts from any potential pure colour. Again the only way to know for sure is to test different combinations of disabling L/M/S eye cones. I couldn't find information of such seemingly obvious experiments from what research I did a while back, despite its massive importance to the whole topic.
That's my point though. How can a apx 515nm wavelength be a fully saturated green if the L cone is also being activated to some degree? That would be the extra pollution I'm talking about. I believe a much purer green would result if you somehow disabled the L cone. Unless you think we might see a more cyan/blue-like hue here?
To get a definitive answer, I would be interested to see what one would experience if you disabled two of the three S/M/L cones. I'm suspecting you would see pure red (disable S+M), green (disable S+L) and blue (M+L). Any research into that?
That's interesting, but it isn't "green"
What is it then?
Parent is correct. Any colours around green and cyan are usually terribly unsaturated on most monitors. In fact, even in 'real life', it isn't theoretically possible to experience true cyan/aqua because the nearest direct wavelength will stimulate the red eye cone to some extent creating colour pollution.
There is a trick around this, which can be found by over-saturating the red cone. This weakens it temporarily, and then when shortly afterwards you see anything resembling cyan, it will appear as close to the true qualia as you could ever expect. The "Eclipse of Mars" illusion that follows in the below link demonstrates this for those who are curious:
http://www.skytopia.com/project/illusion/2illusion.html
I think people have kept with hard drives for so long because they were so noisy and slow. Now they're getting quieter or even silent, SSDs have become more attractive.
It's dumb. Like those people re-implementing standard library functions. It's unprofessional and inefficient.
I thought that too until I found the bottleneck that is converting from float to int using (int) casting. I found the following to be multiple times faster:
unsigned floatToInt(double d) // 1 52
{
d += 4503599627370496.0;
return (unsigned &)d;
}
Rather than cranking up the GHz of each core to obtain more speed, I wish they'd concentrate on keeping it cool. I hate the fan noise, and multicore was a way around that because it rarely heats up with standard usage. Hence less or no cooling required.
"We've got to find some way to get that fan to rotate to annoy the users... ah I have a cunning plan..."
Wasn't the reverb added afterwards?
Maybe, but isn't the 'web' basically like a turing machine that can emulate everything else if need be?
I wonder what Windows 7/XP would be like if it never bothered running any of its own tasks (while supposedly nothing was happening), and never bothered accessing the HD (which is always flickering).
Annoying latencies would be a thing of the past, and you could code a realtime app on it like you would need. I bet there would hardly be any disadvantages.
Is this a problem with Ogg, or the media players implementations? Could this even theoretically be fixed with Ogg in its current state?
Afaik, usually, codecs have something called 'key frames' where the lower the step for each key frame, the quicker it is for the user to seek to any particular part of the video. The extreme case would be to have each frame as a key frame. This should allow instant random access of the video, but the resulting filesize will be bigger.
Doesn't Ogg have/support anything like that?
And the big toe. My soul obviously resides around there somewhere. ;)
It's also more logical than the alternative. I'll never forgive the language for making us use commas inside quotes when obviously they belong outside.
I wonder which head the soul would associate with after the new head is made, or maybe it would use both?
I don't like anti-virus software and wouldn't dream of using anything Like Mcafee or Norton, but how is it a fail if they're willing to admit guilt and even PAY for any damages incurred?
Luckily, a lot of people have some kind of moral system, which would allow them to purchase digital goods providing they were a: good quality, b: suitably cheap (i.e. unlike Photoshop), and c: had no DRM attached (i.e. unlike stuff from Ubisoft).
I am one of those customers that you're talking about. On the contrary, I hope they make aspect ratios in the region of 10:1. Yes, 10 times wider than deep. This way, you get excellent periphery vision, and a much greater sense of realism. In the future, the monitor can wrap around in a semi-circular curve.
It would be about time.
Some browsers have a zoom feature. Try Opera or Firefox.
I wonder what he would think of Chess and Go, two examples of non-video games which have an incredible amount of subtlety to them, probably much more than many so-called art 'masterpieces' out there. From simple rules, come profoundly complex gameplay.
Even some video games have at least a degree of this kind of complexity. Examples include maybe Settlers/Populous, Lemmings (original), and Speedball 2. To a lesser extent, Stunt Car Racer, Outrun, Strider, and even good old Asteroids or Pacman.
(Sorry the latest games don't do it for me, though I haven't looked properly tbh, so I'm sure there are a few gems.)
I wonder what percentage of the kernel is 'bloat' or code that's needed to maintain backwards compatibility.