Unfortunatly you missed my point too, but after all it's not my post you were replying to. My point was that a religious question, just as a moral question, can only get subjective answers, well as long as you don't get into the facts and stick to opinions and beliefs, no matter what they're based on;-).
Wow, lol I didn't even think someone would jump on this occasion to debate about the fairness of God. That's what happens when you invoke terms that when put together unleash people's passion.
In other words, you totally missed the point. I actually got my "Is God fair?" question from typing "Is God" in Google Suggest, just to get a good parallel. So here's the point of this question broken down just for you : you cannot get an objective answer to such a question as "Can a word be immoral?" for the same reason as "Is God fair?", the reason for that is that moral values and religious beliefs are subjective by nature, and thus, you can only answer subjectively to the question "Is God fair?" because your answer will completly depend on the nature of your beliefs or non-beliefs, in other words, your opinion. Same goes for morality.
I for one would answer to that question by saying that God doesn't exist, because I'm an atheist. Someone else could say that God isn't fair by for example mentionning inequalities in the quality of life of different group of people (for example comparing the life of citizens of Luxembourg to the life of Rwandanese people, or whatever they're called). It doesn't make any of us right or wrong, we're only expressing our beliefs/opinions.
I'm sorry that you bothered to write such a lengthy answer to a question I wasn't really asking.
It's just that an argument between a moral relativist and a moral absolutist on the topic of morality is as much of a waste of time as an argument between a hardcore atheist and a born-again christian. An argument gets pointless when the two persons who argument have diametrically opposed opinions on the topic.
It's pretty much like asking "Is God fair?". I only hope you don't expect an objective answer, because morals are just as subjective as religious beliefs (and please don't hit me back with a Wikipedia link to an article about moral absolutism or moral objectivism).
air samples taken over North Korea have not yet shown any radiation
As soon as I heard the news the other day it sounded obvious to me that it had to be an underground test. They wouldn't be stupid enough to make explode an atmospheric bomb, considered the pollution it creates, and then it's a fairly common thing to rather make underground tests now.
Aren't these news consistent with an underground explosion? If not then I wonder why Jacques Chirac was assisting to underground nuclear tests in Mururoa in 1995 without any kind of protection.
There is no such thing as a 0.0 - 1.0 visual range.
I was talking about the range on the computer/screen side. Your images are stored in the 0.0 - 1.0 range.
you should also realize that the idea of "going outside" the 0.0 - 1.0 range is absurd.
It's all about scaling. And as for the "incredible human senses", our vision may be incredible, but our hearing is hardly good enough to pick up the -93 dB (iirc) noise (with respect to the maximum sample value) that you have with a 16-bit sound.
That's why HDR and color depth are joined at the hip. You can't get one without the other.
I don't agree, you can have a huge dynamic range with a 2-bit grey depth. That's because HDR is all about the size of the range. Color depth needs to increase with the dynamic range only if you want to keep a step as fine between each possible color value, otherwise you can crank up the dynamic range with any color depth. And when I'm talking about dynamic range I'm not even talking about "quiet" because here our quiet is 0.0, or -infinite dB if you prefer, that's why we can't even talk about contrast ratio because in this case it's always infinite. I guess "HDR and color depth are joined at the hip" if you're talking about situations in which you don't have an infinite contrast ratio, in this case what I just said do not hold true, other than that it's all about how "loud" or luminous it gets.
I wouldn't say that. Mainly because basically a high dynamic range means that your range go outside of your traditional 0.0-1.0 range, as color depth is mainly about staying in the 0.0-1.0 range, but with a better precision. This being said, you still can use a greater color depth to display HDR.
It's as if you had a 24-bit sound card, you could turn your 16-bit sounds into 24-bit sounds but 256 times lower, crank up the volume of your speakers so that these sound normal and with the normal amount of noise, and become deaf when a 24-bit sound makes use of the upper 8 bits.
Frustriating that the software will handle 48 bit, three channels of 16, but the monitors won't
That may be frustrating, but there's still a solution to make things look better if you got 48-bit images to display in 24-bit : dynamic random dithering.
You incult clod, if the GP said it it was because the GGP's sig is a reference to a painting of an apple that says "Ceci n'est pas une pomme" ("This is not an apple") because it's not an apple but really a painting. The GP was pointing that the GGP's sig was actually a signature although it claimed not to be one, and thus that it didn't fit the spirit of the painting it was refering to, and that it would have been more like the spirit of it if instead of having it to be an actual sig, it was something he pasted at the end of every of his posts to make it look like a sig. It would look like a sig, but it wouldn't be one.
Actually if you watch Oz you might notice in a few episodes that they have access to computers and even internet (which they even use to browse for porn). Considered how Oz wants to be realistic, I guess you really can have access to internet in jail.
Are you sure? I thought about that and it just didn't appear obvious to me, although it would make sense, I just thought making them a binary system was a safer bet.
every time I asked them any kind of questions answer was fairly the same: you noob go to books, online, and other abuse.
Based on my experience, while it often happens on IRC's, it doesn't happen on USENET. If you ask correctly a pertinent question, you'll get good replies from people who know what they're talking about.
lol, yeah, using a huge star. I'm not sure what your plan consists in anyways, but I think the best would be to "throw" the biggest star you can from where you stand to the side of the black hole, to have the black hole to capture the star (in its orbit, not inside of its event horizon) and become a binary system. If you throw your star fast enough you'll get the new binary system to move away from you.
Hey bozo, your post didn't contain anything. And for some reason you got modded up as funny.
Your post did contain something. And for some reason you didn't get modded up. I wonder why;-)
If you still ain't got the joke, his post said "Screenshot", and all you see was nothing, because there's nothing to see when you look at a black hole.
There's one thing I don't quite get, from TFA, they put an emphasis on how he's playing a two-dimensional game. Right, Space Invaders is display two dimensionally, however the player movements are one dimensional, but then they say, "We then gave him a more challenging version in two-dimensions and he mastered two levels there playing only with his imagination". What the hell does it mean?
Oh and in case it allows people to control a cursor on the screen, I'd love to see at work on the basic everyday life mouse operations, to see how well it works. Makes me wonder, is there any DYI "mind control" kit out there so that you can process your brain signals to experiment with on a computer?
Some of the pure bullshit I hear them tell uniformed customers amazes me
lol, if only I wasn't too tired to make a witty comment, because whatever joke I can think of involving the cops or such would undoubtfully get me modded down for flamebait..
StarForce? I thought StarForce was dead or about to die from being annoying to the user/potentially harmful to the hardware, posting torrents of games which didn't use StarForce on their forums (GalCiv2) and being cracked anyways? I thought Steam was the latest fashionable hard-to-crack protection.
There's something I just don't get from the CNN article. It keeps saying that MySpace is Google-YouTube's concurrent in the online video domain, with such statements as "he said Google needed to do something to become more competitive with MySpace, which currently ranks in second place in online video market share.", and talking about MySpace's "own video service", but WTF, I thought MySpace relied entirely on YouTube for videos, so how is MySpace in concurrence with Google-YouTube?
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunatly you missed my point too, but after all it's not my post you were replying to. My point was that a religious question, just as a moral question, can only get subjective answers, well as long as you don't get into the facts and stick to opinions and beliefs, no matter what they're based on ;-).
FWIW, yes, God is fair.
Wow, lol I didn't even think someone would jump on this occasion to debate about the fairness of God. That's what happens when you invoke terms that when put together unleash people's passion.
In other words, you totally missed the point. I actually got my "Is God fair?" question from typing "Is God" in Google Suggest, just to get a good parallel. So here's the point of this question broken down just for you : you cannot get an objective answer to such a question as "Can a word be immoral?" for the same reason as "Is God fair?", the reason for that is that moral values and religious beliefs are subjective by nature, and thus, you can only answer subjectively to the question "Is God fair?" because your answer will completly depend on the nature of your beliefs or non-beliefs, in other words, your opinion. Same goes for morality.
I for one would answer to that question by saying that God doesn't exist, because I'm an atheist. Someone else could say that God isn't fair by for example mentionning inequalities in the quality of life of different group of people (for example comparing the life of citizens of Luxembourg to the life of Rwandanese people, or whatever they're called). It doesn't make any of us right or wrong, we're only expressing our beliefs/opinions.
I'm sorry that you bothered to write such a lengthy answer to a question I wasn't really asking.
It's just that an argument between a moral relativist and a moral absolutist on the topic of morality is as much of a waste of time as an argument between a hardcore atheist and a born-again christian. An argument gets pointless when the two persons who argument have diametrically opposed opinions on the topic.
It's pretty much like asking "Is God fair?". I only hope you don't expect an objective answer, because morals are just as subjective as religious beliefs (and please don't hit me back with a Wikipedia link to an article about moral absolutism or moral objectivism).
No sex words allowed in your .ie domain name? So, no www.dickvandyke.ie?
0.3W to 0.75W per fan, depending on speed. Negligible - almost nothing.
I see, so the only reason why Apple makes them run at 1000 RPM is noise, right? (although the submitter says it's not even noisy at 3000 RPM).
Interesting question tho, I wonder what's the extra power drain. If someone could give an estimate.
are you kidding me? tomorrow he could be the 14th post.
And then? Tomorrow will be the 14th anyway..
air samples taken over North Korea have not yet shown any radiation
As soon as I heard the news the other day it sounded obvious to me that it had to be an underground test. They wouldn't be stupid enough to make explode an atmospheric bomb, considered the pollution it creates, and then it's a fairly common thing to rather make underground tests now.
Aren't these news consistent with an underground explosion? If not then I wonder why Jacques Chirac was assisting to underground nuclear tests in Mururoa in 1995 without any kind of protection.
There is no such thing as a 0.0 - 1.0 visual range.
I was talking about the range on the computer/screen side. Your images are stored in the 0.0 - 1.0 range.
you should also realize that the idea of "going outside" the 0.0 - 1.0 range is absurd.
It's all about scaling. And as for the "incredible human senses", our vision may be incredible, but our hearing is hardly good enough to pick up the -93 dB (iirc) noise (with respect to the maximum sample value) that you have with a 16-bit sound.
That's why HDR and color depth are joined at the hip. You can't get one without the other.
I don't agree, you can have a huge dynamic range with a 2-bit grey depth. That's because HDR is all about the size of the range. Color depth needs to increase with the dynamic range only if you want to keep a step as fine between each possible color value, otherwise you can crank up the dynamic range with any color depth. And when I'm talking about dynamic range I'm not even talking about "quiet" because here our quiet is 0.0, or -infinite dB if you prefer, that's why we can't even talk about contrast ratio because in this case it's always infinite. I guess "HDR and color depth are joined at the hip" if you're talking about situations in which you don't have an infinite contrast ratio, in this case what I just said do not hold true, other than that it's all about how "loud" or luminous it gets.
Nothing in this world is truly black
If you don't let any photon out then it's trully black. No need to invoke black holes.
Color depth is HDR
I wouldn't say that. Mainly because basically a high dynamic range means that your range go outside of your traditional 0.0-1.0 range, as color depth is mainly about staying in the 0.0-1.0 range, but with a better precision. This being said, you still can use a greater color depth to display HDR.
It's as if you had a 24-bit sound card, you could turn your 16-bit sounds into 24-bit sounds but 256 times lower, crank up the volume of your speakers so that these sound normal and with the normal amount of noise, and become deaf when a 24-bit sound makes use of the upper 8 bits.
Frustriating that the software will handle 48 bit, three channels of 16, but the monitors won't
That may be frustrating, but there's still a solution to make things look better if you got 48-bit images to display in 24-bit : dynamic random dithering.
Ceci n'est pas une pomme. Worst is that you got modded up lol.
You incult clod, if the GP said it it was because the GGP's sig is a reference to a painting of an apple that says "Ceci n'est pas une pomme" ("This is not an apple") because it's not an apple but really a painting. The GP was pointing that the GGP's sig was actually a signature although it claimed not to be one, and thus that it didn't fit the spirit of the painting it was refering to, and that it would have been more like the spirit of it if instead of having it to be an actual sig, it was something he pasted at the end of every of his posts to make it look like a sig. It would look like a sig, but it wouldn't be one.
Actually if you watch Oz you might notice in a few episodes that they have access to computers and even internet (which they even use to browse for porn). Considered how Oz wants to be realistic, I guess you really can have access to internet in jail.
This goes for usenet too, but be very careful about only answering questions you absolutely, positively know the answers to.
Yeah that's why when I answer a question in USENET I put a disclaimer regarding my level of expertise in the field in question.
You could just throw it in the event horizon
Are you sure? I thought about that and it just didn't appear obvious to me, although it would make sense, I just thought making them a binary system was a safer bet.
every time I asked them any kind of questions answer was fairly the same: you noob go to books, online, and other abuse.
Based on my experience, while it often happens on IRC's, it doesn't happen on USENET. If you ask correctly a pertinent question, you'll get good replies from people who know what they're talking about.
lol, yeah, using a huge star. I'm not sure what your plan consists in anyways, but I think the best would be to "throw" the biggest star you can from where you stand to the side of the black hole, to have the black hole to capture the star (in its orbit, not inside of its event horizon) and become a binary system. If you throw your star fast enough you'll get the new binary system to move away from you.
Hey bozo, your post didn't contain anything. And for some reason you got modded up as funny.
Your post did contain something. And for some reason you didn't get modded up. I wonder why ;-)
If you still ain't got the joke, his post said "Screenshot", and all you see was nothing, because there's nothing to see when you look at a black hole.
There's one thing I don't quite get, from TFA, they put an emphasis on how he's playing a two-dimensional game. Right, Space Invaders is display two dimensionally, however the player movements are one dimensional, but then they say, "We then gave him a more challenging version in two-dimensions and he mastered two levels there playing only with his imagination". What the hell does it mean?
Oh and in case it allows people to control a cursor on the screen, I'd love to see at work on the basic everyday life mouse operations, to see how well it works. Makes me wonder, is there any DYI "mind control" kit out there so that you can process your brain signals to experiment with on a computer?
Some of the pure bullshit I hear them tell uniformed customers amazes me
lol, if only I wasn't too tired to make a witty comment, because whatever joke I can think of involving the cops or such would undoubtfully get me modded down for flamebait..
StarForce? I thought StarForce was dead or about to die from being annoying to the user/potentially harmful to the hardware, posting torrents of games which didn't use StarForce on their forums (GalCiv2) and being cracked anyways? I thought Steam was the latest fashionable hard-to-crack protection.
There's something I just don't get from the CNN article. It keeps saying that MySpace is Google-YouTube's concurrent in the online video domain, with such statements as "he said Google needed to do something to become more competitive with MySpace, which currently ranks in second place in online video market share.", and talking about MySpace's "own video service", but WTF, I thought MySpace relied entirely on YouTube for videos, so how is MySpace in concurrence with Google-YouTube?