It's obvious from how the photographer holds the camera with an unsteady hand and the projection is perfectly still, for example. Who, but Nikon, knows how far the product is from reality?
He won't get 10 years. Anybody who reads any modicum of news from the press knows that the press always reports the maximum possible punishment, which is usually far divorced from reality. It makes the article more shocking, a la yellow journalism... Anyways, expect the actual sentence to be less than a tenth of that.
The Segway is a toy, not a transportation device. People ride them because it's fun, not because it's useful. It's a very expensive toy, but it's a toy.
You know, Space Quest 1 has already been remade once. The original Space Quest was released in 1986 in blocky EGA, with a text interpreter interface. It was remade into VGA in 1991 with a point and click interface.
5000x is hardly enough. IIRC a commercial PV might have an efficiency of 10%. The USA has an area of less than 2% of the Earth's surface. (Latitude matters too, but I'm neglecting that.) That means you'll need to cover one-tenth the USA to provide the energy humans need. That's not at all realistic, completely blocking out vast sections of wilderness. In a solar farm, we could probably only cover a fraction of the land with solar panels, because you need space between the panels. That would increase the land needed.
Also, the 89PW number you quoted, where's that from? I calculate about half that, using solar irradiance of 342W/m^2 and radius 6378km.
You know, there are a lot of people who don't have a problem combining religion and science... so I don't see how that part of your comment has anything to do with anything...
Yet, a lot of people DO have problems with combining religion and science. Look down at the table "Religious Belief and Affiliation". http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/07/scientists_are_godless_liberal.php Sure, there are some religious scientists. But there's a lot fewer than you'd expect, if there were no conflict between the two.
Don't pretend for a moment that evangelicals and vocal atheists have much in common. Atheists who choose to be vocal do so because they see some serious problems in the world which need some addressing. They tend to be a lot more knowledgeable about the Christian mindset than the Christian proselytizer understands the atheist mindset.
It's people like you who put apologetics in a bad light. Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, and the case has been so clearly settled that there are only a few excuses for you to make this sort of error:
You are repeating what other apologetics have said without doing any due diligence to confirm that the statements were in any way accurate. This is a big problem, because religious folks pretty much listen to these authorities who don't really have any grounds for their veracity.
You are trying to deceive people.
You don't think critically. You somehow can completely dismiss any evidence against your case and cherry pick evidence for your case, no matter how large the imbalance of evidence. (e.g. evolution)
This is like how Windows hides system files and program files by default. It might keep the user from accidentally trashing the system, but hiding information from the user is harmful. The user stays ignorant about what's going on in the computer and needs to call eir geek friend or a computer shop in order to do anything a little more involved with the computer.
*nix has it mostly right, with the system files shown to the user, but the user can't trash them without entering the root password. Files starting with . are hidden, but it seems like *nix hides files out of convenience, while Windows hides stuff for security.
I identify three distinct supergenres of games: skill games, immersion games, and social games. Skill games test the players skill, either against other players or a computer. Examples: chess, starcraft, DDR, pacman. Immersion games seek to awe the player with some sensory or story-driven experience. Doom, Oblivion, etc. Social games are glorified chat systems. Graphics are most important to immersion games, and game developers are constantly pushing the envelope on graphics to give the best immersive experience.
Better graphics are always good, despite what some purists say. But better doesn't necessarily mean more realistic. Skill games usually benefit from clear, iconic graphics, because players don't want to feel cheated by confusing graphics in a skill game. But in an immersion game, graphics can be intentionally unclear to build anxiety, and this can be a good thing.
It's easy to dismiss the results as noise, but any decent researcher will estimate her or his error bars, and show that the signal measured is, indeed, small or comparable to the error bars. The way the article is written, it just sounds like they just totally ignored the results because they don't like them or something. To be fair, the paper itself probably does a better job of defending its position, but I don't have time to understand all its details.
As for interference, if the molecule only responds to photons, shielding it from outside photons is trivial. It's called a box. I also get the impression FTA that the output of the transistor is well controlled, meaning that interference could be minimized or removed completely very easily.
Of course, any meaningful computer will have more than thousands of these transistors, and surrounding every transistor with a box is far from practical. And, consider, once you shrink a box down to nanometer sizes, it will become leaky.
The class-based system lets the developer balance whole sets of skills at once, which means that the advantages of one skill could be offset by the disadvantages of a lack of skill or even a penalty in a class. This means that not every skill has to be balanced relative to each other; only the classes themselves need to be balanced.
Disadvantages include stuff like, inability to wield bladed weapons, or inability to wear armor, etc.
Disadvantages are difficult to incorporate into a purely skill-based system because nobody is going to pick a disadvantage unless forced, and so the developer has to arbitrarily staple them onto a skill. Like, wielding weapons means you suck at casting spells, or wearing armor means you can't sneak around. Congratulations, you've just implemented classes in a skill-based system.
It seems like most games these days are using primarily a class-based system with some "accessory" skills, which is essentially a class-based system with some extra flavor. It's because people haven't really figured out how to balance a purely skill-based system.
Slashdot Mirror
What advantage does it have over voice recognition? It seems to be the same or similar underlying processing.
It's obvious from how the photographer holds the camera with an unsteady hand and the projection is perfectly still, for example. Who, but Nikon, knows how far the product is from reality?
He won't get 10 years. Anybody who reads any modicum of news from the press knows that the press always reports the maximum possible punishment, which is usually far divorced from reality. It makes the article more shocking, a la yellow journalism... Anyways, expect the actual sentence to be less than a tenth of that.
yourself. Otherwise it would be plain gambling.
lemme guess--you're a driver.
The Segway is a toy, not a transportation device. People ride them because it's fun, not because it's useful. It's a very expensive toy, but it's a toy.
Fitness is an important characteristic of living entities, but it isn't the same thing as intelligence.
There's no such thing as a realistic speed limit because everyone is going to go 15% faster than the speed limit whatever it is set to.
You know, Space Quest 1 has already been remade once. The original Space Quest was released in 1986 in blocky EGA, with a text interpreter interface. It was remade into VGA in 1991 with a point and click interface.
5000x is hardly enough. IIRC a commercial PV might have an efficiency of 10%. The USA has an area of less than 2% of the Earth's surface. (Latitude matters too, but I'm neglecting that.) That means you'll need to cover one-tenth the USA to provide the energy humans need. That's not at all realistic, completely blocking out vast sections of wilderness. In a solar farm, we could probably only cover a fraction of the land with solar panels, because you need space between the panels. That would increase the land needed.
Also, the 89PW number you quoted, where's that from? I calculate about half that, using solar irradiance of 342W/m^2 and radius 6378km.
If I were one of the customers who had my book deleted, then I would feel entitled--even compelled--to download a DRM-free copy from the internet.
You know, there are a lot of people who don't have a problem combining religion and science... so I don't see how that part of your comment has anything to do with anything...
Yet, a lot of people DO have problems with combining religion and science. Look down at the table "Religious Belief and Affiliation". http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/07/scientists_are_godless_liberal.php
Sure, there are some religious scientists. But there's a lot fewer than you'd expect, if there were no conflict between the two.
Don't pretend for a moment that evangelicals and vocal atheists have much in common. Atheists who choose to be vocal do so because they see some serious problems in the world which need some addressing. They tend to be a lot more knowledgeable about the Christian mindset than the Christian proselytizer understands the atheist mindset.
Huh? Jewish atheist makes some sense because the term Jew is overloaded to mean both a religion and Hebrew. But you can't be Christian and an atheist.
It's people like you who put apologetics in a bad light. Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, and the case has been so clearly settled that there are only a few excuses for you to make this sort of error:
Einstein used "God" to make a expression, nothing more. According to your train of thinking, anyone who says "oh my god" is suffering from religion.
This is like how Windows hides system files and program files by default. It might keep the user from accidentally trashing the system, but hiding information from the user is harmful. The user stays ignorant about what's going on in the computer and needs to call eir geek friend or a computer shop in order to do anything a little more involved with the computer.
*nix has it mostly right, with the system files shown to the user, but the user can't trash them without entering the root password. Files starting with . are hidden, but it seems like *nix hides files out of convenience, while Windows hides stuff for security.
If you want to use these images the ethical thing to do is to ask for permission and credit them properly.
It is not unethical to ask for payment in return.
The question to be answered in the courts is not, is it ethical?, but is it legal?.
graphics were decent for the time, though.
I identify three distinct supergenres of games: skill games, immersion games, and social games. Skill games test the players skill, either against other players or a computer. Examples: chess, starcraft, DDR, pacman. Immersion games seek to awe the player with some sensory or story-driven experience. Doom, Oblivion, etc. Social games are glorified chat systems. Graphics are most important to immersion games, and game developers are constantly pushing the envelope on graphics to give the best immersive experience.
Better graphics are always good, despite what some purists say. But better doesn't necessarily mean more realistic. Skill games usually benefit from clear, iconic graphics, because players don't want to feel cheated by confusing graphics in a skill game. But in an immersion game, graphics can be intentionally unclear to build anxiety, and this can be a good thing.
Maybe, fast boot time?
It's easy to dismiss the results as noise, but any decent researcher will estimate her or his error bars, and show that the signal measured is, indeed, small or comparable to the error bars. The way the article is written, it just sounds like they just totally ignored the results because they don't like them or something. To be fair, the paper itself probably does a better job of defending its position, but I don't have time to understand all its details.
It's a transistor, not an amplifier.
As for interference, if the molecule only responds to photons, shielding it from outside photons is trivial. It's called a box. I also get the impression FTA that the output of the transistor is well controlled, meaning that interference could be minimized or removed completely very easily.
Of course, any meaningful computer will have more than thousands of these transistors, and surrounding every transistor with a box is far from practical. And, consider, once you shrink a box down to nanometer sizes, it will become leaky.
The class-based system lets the developer balance whole sets of skills at once, which means that the advantages of one skill could be offset by the disadvantages of a lack of skill or even a penalty in a class. This means that not every skill has to be balanced relative to each other; only the classes themselves need to be balanced.
Disadvantages include stuff like, inability to wield bladed weapons, or inability to wear armor, etc.
Disadvantages are difficult to incorporate into a purely skill-based system because nobody is going to pick a disadvantage unless forced, and so the developer has to arbitrarily staple them onto a skill. Like, wielding weapons means you suck at casting spells, or wearing armor means you can't sneak around. Congratulations, you've just implemented classes in a skill-based system.
It seems like most games these days are using primarily a class-based system with some "accessory" skills, which is essentially a class-based system with some extra flavor. It's because people haven't really figured out how to balance a purely skill-based system.