What say we all universally switch to a 300fps system for now. It divides by 20, 25, 30, 50, 60, and 100, so it would convert most of the old signals smoothly. And I bet OLED technology would allow it.
At a push maybe even 600fps, so that 24fps would divide also.
With a social security type setup (where jobless people will get at least enough money to survive), that shouldn't be a problem. One needn't be jealous of those people, because they're getting less or far less than the paid workers. But in the end we all prosper.
There's also the risk of an economical downturn where maybe a proportion of those jobless people will suddenly be needed. So not only is everybody richer, but the economy has a safety net.
'Creating jobs' isn't necessarily a good thing, no matter how many times people say it.
What really matters is output and a person's time. It's possible that more jobs will output more, whilst also offsetting the disadvantage of the time taken for that new job.
However, ideally, we should be looking to *reduce* jobs, whilst maintaining efficiency/output, or even increasing efficiency. When certain tasks become automated, that happens naturally, and it doesn't become a loss of output, but frees up someone's time. Which is a Good Thing.
In the end, we can use that time for socialising and become explorers, artists, composers, writers, thinkers, recreationists and scientists/researchers (that's not so easy to automate of course).
The stats are awesome for this if it's true. Here's a quick lowdown. Full stats are below (taken from PDF doc).
The weight is more than twice as light as Lithium Ion The volume is 20% smaller than Lithium Ion The charging time is 60x faster than Li-ion (15x faster than NiMH)
-----, EESU, NiMH, LA (Gel), Ni-Z, Li-Ion Weight (pounds), 286.56, 1716, 3646, 1920, 752 Volume (inch^3), 4541, 17881, 43045, 34780, 5697 Discharge rate/30 days, 0.1%, 5%, 1%, 1%, 1% Charging time, 3-6 min, 1.5h, 8h, 1.5h, 6h Life reduced with deep cycle use, none, moderate, high, moderate, high Hazardous materials, none, yes, yes, yes, yes
The researchers created the illusion of body-swapping by touching the stomach of both the mannequin and the volunteer with sticks
What would have been far more interesting is if they achieved the same sensation without poking the participant as well. But even then, that could be be achieved with hypnosis anyway (?)
Interesting. Your idea is pretty much what I thought of before I came across this plugin.
The advantage this has over our idea is how any arbitrary tab could become a group. Opening a new link in a new tab would created a child tab under the current one. This does away with the hassle of manually grouping tabs (though the plugin I'm talking about will allow you to do that too).
Yes, but it would be oh so nice to disable this 'feature', or at least allow the option of setting the percentage of RAM to use before the HD starts to crunch away.
I love Opera more than any other browser out there and use it all the time, but wake me up when it starts to support nested tabs. There was a post by a Firefox user not so long ago who mentioned such an addon. People are rightfully raving about this time saving feature (and similar addons).
Tabs are grouped hierarchially according to where they are opened from in the form of a tree, but they can be expanded if need be. Tab names can be fully seen (instead of just graphical icons), and a whole branch may be closed (e.g. a site + its sub pages). A massive space saver when you are working with loads of sites.
As a trivial example of when 1+1=2 doesn't hold, what if addition did not exist?
But addition can't not exist. It's way up there on the list of the first of the "things-to-do" from the agenda where you have two numbers that you want to do something with. I'm not sure how else I can say this.
Pi only has its familiar value in Euclidean space
a: One can say that those numbers hold true in 'Euclidean space' and that 'Euclidean space' is the abstract concept, and that it's the universe which fits around that kind of mathematical space.
b: If you're going to argue about that for this, you might as well argue about Euclidean space for the 1+1=2 thing.
c: Euclidean space is probably simpler than the other spaces anyway (in more than one way).
Actually you can dream up universes where 1+1=2 doesn't hold. It can fail to hold for a variety of reasons.
And down the relativistic shoot we go. Would those reasons be related to physics by any chance? Honestly, I can't see how such an abstract concept such as math could conceivably even hint how 1+1 would not equal 2. If it equals something else, then congratulations, you have created an operator which does not have the quality that simple addition does.
Equally, special numbers such as Pi and e will always output the same pattern of digits in any multi/quasi/supro-uno universe (given a particular base to start with - it doesn't have to be 10 of course).
Well, it would be nice if the suggestions came up faster, but that may not be too easy to solve.
Really all I can say is to see what people actually type into that box, and add more entries and keywords based on those really, but you probably already do/knew that.
Oh and maybe if any extra extraneous words were typed, it'd be nice if it found the entries that matched most of those words, rather than coming up with nothing at all...
Great stuff. I thought of this kind of thing a while back, but it's brilliant to see people putting this thing into practise, especially with this level of automation.
You can't expect everyone else to buy faster computers they don't need just so yours will be cheaper. Same with the picture quality: you want something they don't, that's your issue to deal with, not theirs.
Well that's the other thing. TVs are already capable of 60fps, so it wouldn't be any more expensive. Yet TV/film producers still continue to shoot at half that frame rate or less.
If I only needed a computer for MS word 2003, and never used it for ANYTHING else, then yeah, it would be idiotic of me to get a faster CPU than I needed.
Four points really:
1: I (and apparently others in this thread) really do notice the difference, and the judderiness can be a pain (especially for fast moving shots).
2: If others needed a faster computer for other things, then the majority would be holding the technology back for the fewer people (and for 'undreamt' purposes that faster CPUs could provide, which eventually the majority could take advantage of).
3: I know I said many people can't tell the difference, but I think it's more indifference that I would be irritated by. In fact, I believe most people may be able to tell the difference after all. Try the comparisons at this thread. Take a look - you may be surprised.
4: I said this earlier too, but again, part of my iritation stems from how they often show soaps and cookery progs at 50/60 fps, and yet movies fare off worse than these, being shot at only 24fps.
I totally agree. The linked video was useless as a comparison, because the video itself was running at 24fps. I did notice a difference on the bouncing ball (the 2nd ball is relevant, the first is just camera technique and you could make it look similarly blurry at 60fps if you wanted), but I could not see any difference in the ut2k4 side by side.
It wasn't the best video I could have posted, as it was small, and they used an inefficient codec (causing some jittering). The comparison on this thread is much, much better (thanks to Sigma 7 for the heads up). If you can't see the massive difference between the 30 and 60fps, then I would be very surprised:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1069482
There's a 24fps vs 60fps video too, which has an even more pronounced difference (partly due to the fact that 24 doesn't into 60fps very well causing different time lengths for each frame).
Nor should I have been able to according to scientific fact.
The 'fact' you're thinking of is possible referring to how humans only need 24fps to perceive something as moving video? That doesn't mean faster frame rates won't look much smoother and less annoying.
They have, to my knowledge, always been screened at 24fps or thereabouts and will always be broadcast at a similar rate. Any extra frame rate is just wasted.
Soaps, sports, documentaries and cooking programmes will often run at 50/60 fps.
Slashdot Mirror
What say we all universally switch to a 300fps system for now. It divides by 20, 25, 30, 50, 60, and 100, so it would convert most of the old signals smoothly. And I bet OLED technology would allow it.
At a push maybe even 600fps, so that 24fps would divide also.
Too right. So many people seem to care about large-time benchmarks, and not enough about short ones and latency issues.
Like you imply, the countless half second pauses are the *real* things that people would (often subconsciously) count as sluggish in an OS.
Even WinXP is poor here - the HD always thrashes for me when I open up the file requester or delete a file for instance. I'd hate to see Vista.
Sleep addiction has been covered before: "Sleep Is An Addictive Illness"
With a social security type setup (where jobless people will get at least enough money to survive), that shouldn't be a problem. One needn't be jealous of those people, because they're getting less or far less than the paid workers. But in the end we all prosper.
There's also the risk of an economical downturn where maybe a proportion of those jobless people will suddenly be needed. So not only is everybody richer, but the economy has a safety net.
'Creating jobs' isn't necessarily a good thing, no matter how many times people say it.
What really matters is output and a person's time. It's possible that more jobs will output more, whilst also offsetting the disadvantage of the time taken for that new job.
However, ideally, we should be looking to *reduce* jobs, whilst maintaining efficiency/output, or even increasing efficiency. When certain tasks become automated, that happens naturally, and it doesn't become a loss of output, but frees up someone's time. Which is a Good Thing.
In the end, we can use that time for socialising and become explorers, artists, composers, writers, thinkers, recreationists and scientists/researchers (that's not so easy to automate of course).
Leaving the work to robots/computers.
The stats are awesome for this if it's true. Here's a quick lowdown. Full stats are below (taken from PDF doc).
The weight is more than twice as light as Lithium Ion
The volume is 20% smaller than Lithium Ion
The charging time is 60x faster than Li-ion (15x faster than NiMH)
-----, EESU, NiMH, LA (Gel), Ni-Z, Li-Ion
Weight (pounds), 286.56, 1716, 3646, 1920, 752
Volume (inch^3), 4541, 17881, 43045, 34780, 5697
Discharge rate/30 days, 0.1%, 5%, 1%, 1%, 1%
Charging time, 3-6 min, 1.5h, 8h, 1.5h, 6h
Life reduced with deep cycle use, none, moderate, high, moderate, high
Hazardous materials, none, yes, yes, yes, yes
Hehe, I love the way 'downgrade' is in quotes, but upgrade isn't... ;)
Can all those be fixed in theory? If not now, then in the future maybe?
This 'speed of light' thing really sucks :(
Is there *any* way to move/accelerate in space given unlimited quantities of energy (and short of converting energy to matter) ?
Here's something it wouldn't be good for. Imagine a simple shaded backdrop (skyline say). It would have to create individual polygons for each shade.
A better version maybe would be to place colour points at each corner, and have them fade into each inside the polygon.
Quote from the article:
The researchers created the illusion of body-swapping by touching the stomach of both the mannequin and the volunteer with sticks
What would have been far more interesting is if they achieved the same sensation without poking the participant as well. But even then, that could be be achieved with hypnosis anyway (?)
Interesting. Your idea is pretty much what I thought of before I came across this plugin.
The advantage this has over our idea is how any arbitrary tab could become a group. Opening a new link in a new tab would created a child tab under the current one. This does away with the hassle of manually grouping tabs (though the plugin I'm talking about will allow you to do that too).
Yes, but it would be oh so nice to disable this 'feature', or at least allow the option of setting the percentage of RAM to use before the HD starts to crunch away.
Is that really to much to ask?
I love Opera more than any other browser out there and use it all the time, but wake me up when it starts to support nested tabs. There was a post by a Firefox user not so long ago who mentioned such an addon. People are rightfully raving about this time saving feature (and similar addons).
Tabs are grouped hierarchially according to where they are opened from in the form of a tree, but they can be expanded if need be. Tab names can be fully seen (instead of just graphical icons), and a whole branch may be closed (e.g. a site + its sub pages). A massive space saver when you are working with loads of sites.
I posted a message on the Opera forum. One can but hope:
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=257296
As a trivial example of when 1+1=2 doesn't hold, what if addition did not exist?
But addition can't not exist. It's way up there on the list of the first of the "things-to-do" from the agenda where you have two numbers that you want to do something with. I'm not sure how else I can say this.
Pi only has its familiar value in Euclidean space
a: One can say that those numbers hold true in 'Euclidean space' and that 'Euclidean space' is the abstract concept, and that it's the universe which fits around that kind of mathematical space.
b: If you're going to argue about that for this, you might as well argue about Euclidean space for the 1+1=2 thing.
c: Euclidean space is probably simpler than the other spaces anyway (in more than one way).
Actually you can dream up universes where 1+1=2 doesn't hold. It can fail to hold for a variety of reasons.
And down the relativistic shoot we go. Would those reasons be related to physics by any chance? Honestly, I can't see how such an abstract concept such as math could conceivably even hint how 1+1 would not equal 2. If it equals something else, then congratulations, you have created an operator which does not have the quality that simple addition does.
Equally, special numbers such as Pi and e will always output the same pattern of digits in any multi/quasi/supro-uno universe (given a particular base to start with - it doesn't have to be 10 of course).
With fast panning shots, it's *incredibly* easy to tell the difference between 30 and 60fps.
Even with fairly slow moving shots, I can tell the difference. Try the aforementioned comparisons at: ...and even better depending on your PC configuration/codec ability:
http://loot-ninja.com/2007/04/29/video-comparison-24fps-vs-60fps/
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1069482
If that word is painful to the eyes, then using "could care less" instead of "couldn't care less" must be painful to the eyes, mind, body and soul.
Well, it would be nice if the suggestions came up faster, but that may not be too easy to solve.
Really all I can say is to see what people actually type into that box, and add more entries and keywords based on those really, but you probably already do/knew that.
Oh and maybe if any extra extraneous words were typed, it'd be nice if it found the entries that matched most of those words, rather than coming up with nothing at all...
Great stuff. I thought of this kind of thing a while back, but it's brilliant to see people putting this thing into practise, especially with this level of automation.
You can't expect everyone else to buy faster computers they don't need just so yours will be cheaper. Same with the picture quality: you want something they don't, that's your issue to deal with, not theirs.
Well that's the other thing. TVs are already capable of 60fps, so it wouldn't be any more expensive. Yet TV/film producers still continue to shoot at half that frame rate or less.
If I only needed a computer for MS word 2003, and never used it for ANYTHING else, then yeah, it would be idiotic of me to get a faster CPU than I needed. Four points really:
1: I (and apparently others in this thread) really do notice the difference, and the judderiness can be a pain (especially for fast moving shots).
2: If others needed a faster computer for other things, then the majority would be holding the technology back for the fewer people (and for 'undreamt' purposes that faster CPUs could provide, which eventually the majority could take advantage of).
3: I know I said many people can't tell the difference, but I think it's more indifference that I would be irritated by. In fact, I believe most people may be able to tell the difference after all. Try the comparisons at this thread. Take a look - you may be surprised.
4: I said this earlier too, but again, part of my iritation stems from how they often show soaps and cookery progs at 50/60 fps, and yet movies fare off worse than these, being shot at only 24fps.
I totally agree. The linked video was useless as a comparison, because the video itself was running at 24fps. I did notice a difference on the bouncing ball (the 2nd ball is relevant, the first is just camera technique and you could make it look similarly blurry at 60fps if you wanted), but I could not see any difference in the ut2k4 side by side.
It wasn't the best video I could have posted, as it was small, and they used an inefficient codec (causing some jittering). The comparison on this thread is much, much better (thanks to Sigma 7 for the heads up). If you can't see the massive difference between the 30 and 60fps, then I would be very surprised: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1069482
There's a 24fps vs 60fps video too, which has an even more pronounced difference (partly due to the fact that 24 doesn't into 60fps very well causing different time lengths for each frame).
Nor should I have been able to according to scientific fact.
The 'fact' you're thinking of is possible referring to how humans only need 24fps to perceive something as moving video? That doesn't mean faster frame rates won't look much smoother and less annoying.
They have, to my knowledge, always been screened at 24fps or thereabouts and will always be broadcast at a similar rate. Any extra frame rate is just wasted.
Soaps, sports, documentaries and cooking programmes will often run at 50/60 fps.
Fair point. An earlier post mentioned this comparison which has both comparisons (25 and 30 with 60fps):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1069482