Analogue computers can be "1000s" of times faster than their digital equivalents, you just sacrifice a certain level of accuracy. The demonstration in the TFA appears to just be using the quantum properties of the molecule to perform an analogue computation.
That 1931 color gamut is misleading because it overempasizes greens. In fact, the original NTSC green primary was much closer to the peak, but as a result, yellows were too muted, so they changed it. But you're right - a turquoise primary would increase the RGB gamut significantly.
It would increase the gamut, but it wouldn't improve the rendition of skin tones (uh... the skin tones of most European/Native American/Asian/Middle Eastern/Medditerranean people. eep.) When people complain about the colors on their TV, it's generally because the skin tones don't look right.
That is ridiculous pricing! Clearly they are NOT pricing individual episodes at a competitive price to cable TV.
By your rationale even a dollar an episode is far too much to pay compared to cable, which goes to my point: people aren't willing to pay anything, but are happy to agree that half the going rate would be a fair price, right up to the moment it's offered, at which point the goalposts change.
My point is that no matter WHAT the price is, people will demand to pay half. It doesn't matter what price the buyer thinks is fair-- people on the Internet almost always state their bid is half the asking price, because of their despicable attitude of entitlement and their desire to complain about everything. Internet posters simply use they "I'd pay for it if it were cheaper" as a fig leaf to avoid admitting that they actually probably wouldn't, because they price goalposts always seem to move toward FREE.
Is there anything other than an aggressive war? I'm not sure how you'd passively start a war.
As opposed to a defensive war, or a preventative war, or a multilateral police action, which defensible or not are generally more justified than just invading a country because it gives you material advantage, or for revenge or caprice, or genocide. Waging aggressive war is immoral, whereas defending yourself or coming to the aid of an ally is just.
You're welcome to vote Ron Paul again in 2012 if you wish. I assume that's your man, considering your criticisim drips with the superciliousness and intellectual snobbery that typifies fanboys of "the smartest man in America."
Paying $2/epsiode is not cheap. I would pay $1 for an hour long show (42 minutes in reality) as long as it is commercial free..
Universal Iron rule of the Internet: Everyone would be happy to pay for X, but they're only willing to pay half of what's being asked. Songs are a buck? 50c please. Netflix is $10 a month? I'll only pay $5 a month, and only if there's a bigger selection. An iPad will be $999? Well I'd happily pay $500, and only if it isn't crippled with Apple's retard-o-platform!
It repeats itself over and over in just about all of these conversations... for just about anything people have a choice to buy, there are those that pay it, and those that don't and rationalize their decision with the concept that the price is too high and everything would be unicorns if only the price were 0.5x. And since it isn't, this establishes a platform for griping about collateral issues (usually DRM and license terms),
The fact that Au is so low right now is one of the reasons why I'm a little doubtful there will be a huge correction soon, though the volatility in the price should indicate to people just how unscrewed the value of gold is with regard to goods... It simply isn't a day-to-day repository of value, at least in the United States in this particular economic epoch.
I think my goal price for gold is "an ounce buys a complete set of clothes, formal enough to testify in court." Nowadays that's in the $300-$500 range.
I sort of wish I'd bought gold when Jon Stewart told us to, on December 13th, 2000, when it was something a little south of $300 an ounce. Gold is great thing to hold onto if you predict calamity, like for example, the US starting an aggressive war in the middle east, or for example, a black man becoming president (snark on the second one).
However, if a calamity doesn't happen, you'll lose a ton of money on the opportunity cost versus putting the money in the stock market, or a house or real estate, or bonds... Gold'll never go to zero, but there are times (like maybe this one?) where it's stupedously over-expensive, with demand being driven by paranoid old people watching commercials on Glenn Beck, and your returns might be awful. The deltas of the spot price of gold at this point are dominated by speculation buying and selling, the price change since 2001 has far outstripped price inflation of any currency, and an ounce of gold buys a larger basket of goods than at any other time since at least WW 2, if not before-- the gold market right now has all the earmarks of a bubble, frankly.
Apple is now hated slightly less than MS, which is pretty significant given how maybe a decade ago they were not hated at all.
They weren't hated, they were held in contempt for making closed boxes that no one wanted to buy. What truly enrages the ilk of slashdot is that over the past ten years is that Apple has made a killing selling closed boxes, when all of the "common sense" of open source evangelism told them this was unpossible.
Today, it is appears that Apple and Google are far bigger threats to Microsoft than FOSS ever will be.
The sponsoring contributors to KHTML, and Android are far bigger threats to Open Source than Microsoft ever was? The largest unit volume BSD vendor, and single largest user of the Linux operating system are "far bigger threats to Open Source than Microsoft ever was"? Discuss?
I think you're conflating Open Source with Free as in Freedom, along with sundry other minute political controversies.
16 years ago. Back then Apple was selling Quadras for $5000 and office managers were buying Windows 3.1 for Workgroups. The FDIV bug was discovered months before the Linux kernel 1.0 was released, and people still regularly used something called "Grolier's Encyclopedia" on CD-ROM to watch 320x240 15fps movies of the Apollo launch. Phil Hartman (God rest his soul) was selling Phillips CD-i players, A kid in my neighborhood had just bought a JVC X'EYE, and Conan was still writing for Simpsons.
A console control system doesn't actually stream audio -- all it does is administer the DSPs and hardware, so RT isn't of vital importance, though the system does have to be responsive enough to respond to control moves.
Some of Euphonix's consoles run VXWorks, some others of theirs run Windows embedded. Harrisons run Linux, Neve DFCs control software run on Windows. But again here the software is only a very thin layer on top of tons of customized and proprietary technology.
I read an article about how sound engineers are moving over to Linux because of the RT kernel.
I suspect as long as Pro Tools, Nuendo, and Logic don't run on Linux I don't really see that as a thing that's liable to happen, Audacity and Ardour are jokes, regrettably, and I have yet in my career to meet a "sound engineer"/recording engineer/sound designer/sound editor that even knows what an RT kernel is. And besides, Mac OS X and Windows have realtime services completely sufficient to the purpose.
The move to Linux afoot in professional recording is a figment of Linux fanboys' overactive imaginations. For the time being.
All I have is my original certificate, not my mysterious long form COLB, and an original cert isn't enough for Barack Obama according to a certain other Arizona law.
But more seriously, a birth cert doesn't have your photo, and it's relatively easily forged, at least compared to other identity documents.
That's not true, they can ask for your documentation in course of an "lawful encounter" (the actual language of the law), which is a novel standard and seems pretty ambiguous. If a cop breaks into your house without a warrant, then he can't ask for your passport. Any other situation appears to be fair game.
Gawker apparently didn't check before the leaped... and Apple's got much bigger bucks than they do.
If Gawker et al is accused of a plain old crime or felony, Apple need not spend a dime; the police will investigate and the DA will file charges independent of anything the wronged party may do. Not to say Apple won't sue, but that's on top of Gawker/Gizmodo's criminal liability.
Why should I, as a developer, not get a tool to help me render animations?
Why should Apple, as a hardware vendor, permit you to commoditize its profitable hardware in order for you to create software that will help sell other hardware vendor's handsets?
You seem to think all these different vendors give you these tools because they like you or something. Apple gives you tools so you can make apps that make people wanna buy iDevices. Anything you can do that doesn't necessarily drive hardware sales, they're going to fight very hard against. Adobe tries to make its Flash player as cheap and available as possible to drive demand for its authoring products. Anything that makes it possible to author rich web content outside of the Adobe ecosystem they're going to fight very hard against. Thus the two companies find themselves at crossed purposes here.
Apple doesn't want people to write apps that run on multiple OSs, because it will drive commoditization of the handset hardware. Adobe doesn't want people to be able to create rich web animations with anything but its products, because it will drive commoditization of the authoring software. It's really just that simple.
Is this seriously an argument? xargs has -0, use it. Computers work for us and should conform to our cultural and linguistic norms, and we shouldn't start moralizing about the fact that somebody forty years ago loaded ASCII(20) with particular meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
Analogue computers can be "1000s" of times faster than their digital equivalents, you just sacrifice a certain level of accuracy. The demonstration in the TFA appears to just be using the quantum properties of the molecule to perform an analogue computation.
Imagine the Beowulf cluster...
Wasn't Gambit the X-Man who threw cards at people?
It would increase the gamut, but it wouldn't improve the rendition of skin tones (uh... the skin tones of most European/Native American/Asian/Middle Eastern/Medditerranean people. eep.) When people complain about the colors on their TV, it's generally because the skin tones don't look right.
That is ridiculous pricing! Clearly they are NOT pricing individual episodes at a competitive price to cable TV.
By your rationale even a dollar an episode is far too much to pay compared to cable, which goes to my point: people aren't willing to pay anything, but are happy to agree that half the going rate would be a fair price, right up to the moment it's offered, at which point the goalposts change.
My point is that no matter WHAT the price is, people will demand to pay half. It doesn't matter what price the buyer thinks is fair-- people on the Internet almost always state their bid is half the asking price, because of their despicable attitude of entitlement and their desire to complain about everything. Internet posters simply use they "I'd pay for it if it were cheaper" as a fig leaf to avoid admitting that they actually probably wouldn't, because they price goalposts always seem to move toward FREE.
As opposed to a defensive war, or a preventative war, or a multilateral police action, which defensible or not are generally more justified than just invading a country because it gives you material advantage, or for revenge or caprice, or genocide. Waging aggressive war is immoral, whereas defending yourself or coming to the aid of an ally is just.
You're welcome to vote Ron Paul again in 2012 if you wish. I assume that's your man, considering your criticisim drips with the superciliousness and intellectual snobbery that typifies fanboys of "the smartest man in America."
Paying $2/epsiode is not cheap. I would pay $1 for an hour long show (42 minutes in reality) as long as it is commercial free..
Universal Iron rule of the Internet: Everyone would be happy to pay for X, but they're only willing to pay half of what's being asked. Songs are a buck? 50c please. Netflix is $10 a month? I'll only pay $5 a month, and only if there's a bigger selection. An iPad will be $999? Well I'd happily pay $500, and only if it isn't crippled with Apple's retard-o-platform!
It repeats itself over and over in just about all of these conversations... for just about anything people have a choice to buy, there are those that pay it, and those that don't and rationalize their decision with the concept that the price is too high and everything would be unicorns if only the price were 0.5x. And since it isn't, this establishes a platform for griping about collateral issues (usually DRM and license terms),
The fact that Au is so low right now is one of the reasons why I'm a little doubtful there will be a huge correction soon, though the volatility in the price should indicate to people just how unscrewed the value of gold is with regard to goods... It simply isn't a day-to-day repository of value, at least in the United States in this particular economic epoch.
I think my goal price for gold is "an ounce buys a complete set of clothes, formal enough to testify in court." Nowadays that's in the $300-$500 range.
I sort of wish I'd bought gold when Jon Stewart told us to, on December 13th, 2000, when it was something a little south of $300 an ounce. Gold is great thing to hold onto if you predict calamity, like for example, the US starting an aggressive war in the middle east, or for example, a black man becoming president (snark on the second one).
However, if a calamity doesn't happen, you'll lose a ton of money on the opportunity cost versus putting the money in the stock market, or a house or real estate, or bonds... Gold'll never go to zero, but there are times (like maybe this one?) where it's stupedously over-expensive, with demand being driven by paranoid old people watching commercials on Glenn Beck, and your returns might be awful. The deltas of the spot price of gold at this point are dominated by speculation buying and selling, the price change since 2001 has far outstripped price inflation of any currency, and an ounce of gold buys a larger basket of goods than at any other time since at least WW 2, if not before-- the gold market right now has all the earmarks of a bubble, frankly.
They weren't hated, they were held in contempt for making closed boxes that no one wanted to buy. What truly enrages the ilk of slashdot is that over the past ten years is that Apple has made a killing selling closed boxes, when all of the "common sense" of open source evangelism told them this was unpossible.
Wow you're right. Oops.
The sponsoring contributors to KHTML, and Android are far bigger threats to Open Source than Microsoft ever was? The largest unit volume BSD vendor, and single largest user of the Linux operating system are "far bigger threats to Open Source than Microsoft ever was"? Discuss?
I think you're conflating Open Source with Free as in Freedom, along with sundry other minute political controversies.
16 years ago. Back then Apple was selling Quadras for $5000 and office managers were buying Windows 3.1 for Workgroups. The FDIV bug was discovered months before the Linux kernel 1.0 was released, and people still regularly used something called "Grolier's Encyclopedia" on CD-ROM to watch 320x240 15fps movies of the Apollo launch. Phil Hartman (God rest his soul) was selling Phillips CD-i players, A kid in my neighborhood had just bought a JVC X'EYE, and Conan was still writing for Simpsons.
I'd be curious to see how many people are old enough to actually get this one.
A console control system doesn't actually stream audio -- all it does is administer the DSPs and hardware, so RT isn't of vital importance, though the system does have to be responsive enough to respond to control moves.
Some of Euphonix's consoles run VXWorks, some others of theirs run Windows embedded. Harrisons run Linux, Neve DFCs control software run on Windows. But again here the software is only a very thin layer on top of tons of customized and proprietary technology.
I suspect as long as Pro Tools, Nuendo, and Logic don't run on Linux I don't really see that as a thing that's liable to happen, Audacity and Ardour are jokes, regrettably, and I have yet in my career to meet a "sound engineer"/recording engineer/sound designer/sound editor that even knows what an RT kernel is. And besides, Mac OS X and Windows have realtime services completely sufficient to the purpose.
The move to Linux afoot in professional recording is a figment of Linux fanboys' overactive imaginations. For the time being.
All I have is my original certificate, not my mysterious long form COLB, and an original cert isn't enough for Barack Obama according to a certain other Arizona law.
But more seriously, a birth cert doesn't have your photo, and it's relatively easily forged, at least compared to other identity documents.
What are you talking about?
That's not true, they can ask for your documentation in course of an "lawful encounter" (the actual language of the law), which is a novel standard and seems pretty ambiguous. If a cop breaks into your house without a warrant, then he can't ask for your passport. Any other situation appears to be fair game.
If Gawker et al is accused of a plain old crime or felony, Apple need not spend a dime; the police will investigate and the DA will file charges independent of anything the wronged party may do. Not to say Apple won't sue, but that's on top of Gawker/Gizmodo's criminal liability.
The problem is, as far as Apple's concerend, it has the potential to draw people to phones that aren't the iPhone.
Why should Apple, as a hardware vendor, permit you to commoditize its profitable hardware in order for you to create software that will help sell other hardware vendor's handsets?
You seem to think all these different vendors give you these tools because they like you or something. Apple gives you tools so you can make apps that make people wanna buy iDevices. Anything you can do that doesn't necessarily drive hardware sales, they're going to fight very hard against. Adobe tries to make its Flash player as cheap and available as possible to drive demand for its authoring products. Anything that makes it possible to author rich web content outside of the Adobe ecosystem they're going to fight very hard against. Thus the two companies find themselves at crossed purposes here.
Apple doesn't want people to write apps that run on multiple OSs, because it will drive commoditization of the handset hardware. Adobe doesn't want people to be able to create rich web animations with anything but its products, because it will drive commoditization of the authoring software. It's really just that simple.
Is this seriously an argument? xargs has -0, use it. Computers work for us and should conform to our cultural and linguistic norms, and we shouldn't start moralizing about the fact that somebody forty years ago loaded ASCII(20) with particular meaning.
Sorry I just read the first article. You're right, and it's pathetic.