Facebook is mostly a problem for those that don't use it.
Which is fine until clubs and organizations decide to organize via Facebook. Then you have to join if you want to stay involved. This is a trend that I've already started to notice.
Umm, yes. You've spoken only in generalities without citing any specifics that would allow someone to search for or determine the veracity of your sources and claims. Google turns up nothing with the obvious search terms. In the open source world that would be called spreading FUD.
Its a historical fact.
So you claim. But that claim also caries a burden of proof that you haven't discharged.
Most people I've met who make such claims haven't done the research and are just repeating exaggerated rumors spread by others. (This is not specific to one particular religion or even religions in general, I've found this to be generally true of groups that are the target of hatred.)
Citation or it didn't happen. After all, Jesus had some pretty damning things to say about adultery. (He forgave repentant adulterers but he forbade even looking at a woman with lust.) You will probably find a few cases of people not living up to the official teachings, but I seriously doubt you'll find any official teachings saying that it is okay.
The article uses a benchmark of 1 arc minute at 1 foot which is 88 micrometers, but the pixels are taller than that (102 micrometers) even if they are only 78 micrometers wide.
Note, the 1 arc minute number he uses is still bogus because that number actually represents the resolution at which doctors think your vision "good enough" to not need further correction. It also is only measuring the reliable recognition of letters. The width at which lines completely blur into each other or at which aliasing artifacts are not noticeable is much smaller. Cf. vernier acuity which is only 0.13 arc minutes.
(Fun fact: In Knuth's original work on digital type setting he says he stopped somewhere around 300-600 DPI not because that was "good enough" but because of the limits of the printing process. Beyond that resolution the ink/toner starts to "stick into clumps". Steve Job's might have been more accurate to say that the screen has (almost) printer quality resolution.)
It is settled law that the right to remain silent doesn't apply to your finger prints if they arrest you. I might not like it, but I think DNA would be treated the same way.
Thus, he shouldn't claim that you need twice as many pixels for a certain line resolution.
He doesn't. He claims you need twice as many pixels for a certain cycle resolution. Since 50CPD is 50 cycles per degree and a cycle is peak to trough to peak, then it is 50 white to black to white per degree. A pixel is just black to white or vice versa which is only half a cycle.
You should try doing the math and calculating the angular resolution like I did.
Sure, fine, but the people who empirically measured human visual limits didn't use the math like you did so you can't use 50CPD. You'll have to use 100 pixels per degree. In which case you will get exactly the same results as the article did.
One cycle = one black and one white line. One black line = one line of black pixels. One white line = one line of white pixels.
The mathematical lines at the edges of the pixels are irrelevant because that is not now the 50CPD value was measured. You can argue all you want but that's not how it is measured. It is like claiming a drink isn't 40 proof because it is 20% alcohol by volume instead of by mass. If you want to measure your different way, you can. But then it won't be 50CPD; it will probably be something like 100CPD (assuming I understand how you mean to measure it which I'm not sure I do because it sounds to me like you are double-counting the lines).
The 1 arcminute represents the width of one arm of the "E" that is used in vision tests (the entire "E" is 5 arcminutes high). 20/20 vision is defined as being able to distinguish between characters of that size. However, many people have better than 20/20 vision. 20/20 is just the point at which someone's vision is "good enough" that doctors see no reason to improve your vision.
Also, depending on how you measure it, the human eye can detect features that are much smaller than 1 arcminute. Surprisingly the answer is a different higher resolution if distinguishing between parallel and off-of-parallel-by-one-pixel lines. Or consider what is the narrowest white line that can be detected against a black background. It is much narrower than the "retinal" resolution because past a certain point as the line gets narrower, the eye will detect the line as getting dimmer. The answer is also different if you are using a black line on a white background.
Now is the detectability of a white line against a black background meaningful for display resolutions? Probably not. But the 1 arcminute from the "E" vision test isn't exactly meaningful either because your eyes can detect subfeatures of the "E".
So what is the right measure? I would offer three possible measures. The first is the resolution at which a human eye cannot detect (in a double blind test) further improvement in the display of non-anti-aliased images. Note, even if the eye can't see the jaggies, one may "feel" sharper. The second is the resolution at which the human eye cannot detect the difference between an anti-aliased and a non-anti-aliased image. The third is the resolution at which rounding errors of one pixel are not detectable (e.g. in the rendering of a vector based fonts). I don't know what those numbers are but given my knowledge of the human optic system (I'm not a doctor, but I've studied this question before) they are likely higher than 1 arcminute.
I think it's great that Apple has moved to a high ppi screen and I hope that soon my desktop screen will have a similar ppi, but Apple is lying if they claim the resolution is beyond the limit of human vision. (Though truth be told I suspect Jobs chose his words carefully so he didn't technically say that, but so that everyone thought he said that.)
Look at the YouTube links I posted elsewhere in this thread. The key to DDWFTTW isn't the angle of the propeller or aerodynamics; it's the gearing ratios connecting the wheels to the propeller. You'll notice that the YouTube videos don't even involve any propellers.
If we replace the wind with a linear gear, I think I know how this works.
Setup:
First construct a gear assembly such that 1 inch of linear movement on one gear translates to 3 inches of linear movement in the other gear (you might use intermediate gears to do this). The 1 inch gear represents the propeller. The 3 inch gear represents the tires. Make sure you construct this so that the gears rotate in opposite directions. This so the linear motion on the outside edges of the two gears go in the same direction.
Now sandwich this assembly between two linear gears that represent the road and the wind. You can think of this as two back-to-back rack-and-pinion assemblies. (For stability you might want to mount the "vehicle" gears to freely slide on some sort of rod.)
Finally, while holding the "road" gear steady and letting the "vehicle" gears freely slide, move the "wind" gear to the right.
Question: What happens to the vehicle gears?
Answer: If vehicle moves some distance "x" relative to the wind (where positive represents moving faster than the wind), then it must move three times that distance (i.e. "3x") relative to the road. Suppose the wind has moved distance "y" relative to then road. The speed of the vehicle relative to the wind ("x") plus the speed of the wind relative to the road ("y") also gives the speed of the vehicle relative to the road ("x+y"). Equating the two values for the speed relative to the road we have the equation "x+y=3x". Solving this for "x" we get "x=y/2". This positive value represents movement faster than the wind. Thus the vehicle will travel over the road at 1.5 times the speed of the wind! (Note, that as the ratios get closer to 1:1, the speed increases until a singularity at 1:1).
At least I think that's how it could work. I don't have the gears to construct and test this, and the result doesn't sit well with my physics intuition. I'd love to see someone build this gear variant and see if it works. (Though I might suggest they start with a fairly high gear ratio to keep the relative speeds low and reduce strain on the mechanism.) If it does work, I suspect this sort of gear mechanism is already known and has a name. Too bad I know have any mechanical engineers that might know what it would be called.
Sorry to self reply, but they also claim it can self start so to get it started the propeller can't be getting energy from the wheels either (as they are stopped). It is all very strange.
Except that is not what the DDWFTTW people are claiming. They claim that the propeller is propelling the vehicle not acting as a turbine that sends energy to the wheels.
If you think about it, at the point when the vehicle catches up to the speed of the wind the propeller can't act as a turbine as relative air speed is zero.
(Note, I'm not sure I believe their claims, but I'm pretty sure that is what they are claiming.)
Aren't Time Warner Cable and Warner Brothers owned by the same company? Couldn't this motion come back to bite them if WB ever wants to sue TWC customers?
(On the other hand, maybe their plan is to make it hard for their competitors to sue, but helpfully provide customer details whenever WB asks.)
You didn't read the actual speech did you? If not, you are speaking from ignorance.
You aren't even familiar with the speaking style of the Pope are you? If you were, then your critical thinking stills should have sent up red flags all over the place that the summary was terribly distorted. In fact what the Pope said was basically the opposite of what the summary claimed.
But I guess I should expect this. On slashdot, people will believe anything negative claimed about that Pope. (Hey, for once atheists and evangelicals agree on something.)
Not the only case. Don't forget Immaculate Conception. And technically those were after the doctrine was elaborated in its current form. I has been implicitly there ever since the council of Jerusalem.
One of the first cases is stating that the Virgin Mary's body went to heaven after she died. Which is plainly a crock of shit, if you aren't one of the faithful cultists.
If you believe that Jesus' body went to heaven after he died (after all that is in the Bible), why is it so hard to believe that Mary also did the same?
If you don't believe, that is fine, but that doesn't really raise it to "rock of shit" levels.
... and only on faith and morals and only on things that related to the entire church. There have been something like 20 occurrences where all the conditions are met.
This would be a grand opportunity to decide once and for all whether internet purchases can be practically taxed
Having the fed "decide once and for all" is exactly what is wrong with federal encroachment on state rights. In this case because it is an enumerated power and it is interstate, I actually agree that the fed needs to settle at least the interstate part of the issue but "once and for all" is a very dangerous justification. While I'm sure you would never misuse it, plenty of others have.
Can anyone explain what this distinction really means? I thought "demonstrating to a court" was the point of a warrant.
Also, why would the coalition want to make such a distinction? I could understand the government or law enforcement trying to put in these kinds of weasel words, but I don't understand the coalition putting those words in their statement of principles. Any ideas why?
This might be perfectly reasonable, but why does this have to be written into the law? Agency/Department rules seem like a more appropriate way to handle this.
Slashdot Mirror
Facebook is mostly a problem for those that don't use it.
Which is fine until clubs and organizations decide to organize via Facebook. Then you have to join if you want to stay involved. This is a trend that I've already started to notice.
Is Google really that hard to use?
Umm, yes. You've spoken only in generalities without citing any specifics that would allow someone to search for or determine the veracity of your sources and claims. Google turns up nothing with the obvious search terms. In the open source world that would be called spreading FUD.
Its a historical fact.
So you claim. But that claim also caries a burden of proof that you haven't discharged.
Most people I've met who make such claims haven't done the research and are just repeating exaggerated rumors spread by others. (This is not specific to one particular religion or even religions in general, I've found this to be generally true of groups that are the target of hatred.)
Even the Catholic church used to agree with you.
Citation or it didn't happen. After all, Jesus had some pretty damning things to say about adultery. (He forgave repentant adulterers but he forbade even looking at a woman with lust.) You will probably find a few cases of people not living up to the official teachings, but I seriously doubt you'll find any official teachings saying that it is okay.
The article uses a benchmark of 1 arc minute at 1 foot which is 88 micrometers, but the pixels are taller than that (102 micrometers) even if they are only 78 micrometers wide.
Note, the 1 arc minute number he uses is still bogus because that number actually represents the resolution at which doctors think your vision "good enough" to not need further correction. It also is only measuring the reliable recognition of letters. The width at which lines completely blur into each other or at which aliasing artifacts are not noticeable is much smaller. Cf. vernier acuity which is only 0.13 arc minutes.
(Fun fact: In Knuth's original work on digital type setting he says he stopped somewhere around 300-600 DPI not because that was "good enough" but because of the limits of the printing process. Beyond that resolution the ink/toner starts to "stick into clumps". Steve Job's might have been more accurate to say that the screen has (almost) printer quality resolution.)
It is settled law that the right to remain silent doesn't apply to your finger prints if they arrest you. I might not like it, but I think DNA would be treated the same way.
Thus, he shouldn't claim that you need twice as many pixels for a certain line resolution.
He doesn't. He claims you need twice as many pixels for a certain cycle resolution. Since 50CPD is 50 cycles per degree and a cycle is peak to trough to peak, then it is 50 white to black to white per degree. A pixel is just black to white or vice versa which is only half a cycle.
You should try doing the math and calculating the angular resolution like I did.
Sure, fine, but the people who empirically measured human visual limits didn't use the math like you did so you can't use 50CPD. You'll have to use 100 pixels per degree. In which case you will get exactly the same results as the article did.
One cycle = one black and one white line. One black line = one line of black pixels. One white line = one line of white pixels.
The mathematical lines at the edges of the pixels are irrelevant because that is not now the 50CPD value was measured. You can argue all you want but that's not how it is measured. It is like claiming a drink isn't 40 proof because it is 20% alcohol by volume instead of by mass. If you want to measure your different way, you can. But then it won't be 50CPD; it will probably be something like 100CPD (assuming I understand how you mean to measure it which I'm not sure I do because it sounds to me like you are double-counting the lines).
The 1 arcminute represents the width of one arm of the "E" that is used in vision tests (the entire "E" is 5 arcminutes high). 20/20 vision is defined as being able to distinguish between characters of that size. However, many people have better than 20/20 vision. 20/20 is just the point at which someone's vision is "good enough" that doctors see no reason to improve your vision.
Also, depending on how you measure it, the human eye can detect features that are much smaller than 1 arcminute. Surprisingly the answer is a different higher resolution if distinguishing between parallel and off-of-parallel-by-one-pixel lines. Or consider what is the narrowest white line that can be detected against a black background. It is much narrower than the "retinal" resolution because past a certain point as the line gets narrower, the eye will detect the line as getting dimmer. The answer is also different if you are using a black line on a white background.
Now is the detectability of a white line against a black background meaningful for display resolutions? Probably not. But the 1 arcminute from the "E" vision test isn't exactly meaningful either because your eyes can detect subfeatures of the "E".
So what is the right measure? I would offer three possible measures. The first is the resolution at which a human eye cannot detect (in a double blind test) further improvement in the display of non-anti-aliased images. Note, even if the eye can't see the jaggies, one may "feel" sharper. The second is the resolution at which the human eye cannot detect the difference between an anti-aliased and a non-anti-aliased image. The third is the resolution at which rounding errors of one pixel are not detectable (e.g. in the rendering of a vector based fonts). I don't know what those numbers are but given my knowledge of the human optic system (I'm not a doctor, but I've studied this question before) they are likely higher than 1 arcminute.
I think it's great that Apple has moved to a high ppi screen and I hope that soon my desktop screen will have a similar ppi, but Apple is lying if they claim the resolution is beyond the limit of human vision. (Though truth be told I suspect Jobs chose his words carefully so he didn't technically say that, but so that everyone thought he said that.)
Look at the YouTube links I posted elsewhere in this thread. The key to DDWFTTW isn't the angle of the propeller or aerodynamics; it's the gearing ratios connecting the wheels to the propeller. You'll notice that the YouTube videos don't even involve any propellers.
After writing all that it turns out someone has already posted two very good explanations using the same analogy: Along the paper faster than the paper and Under the ruler faster than the ruler.
If we replace the wind with a linear gear, I think I know how this works.
Setup:
Question: What happens to the vehicle gears?
Answer: If vehicle moves some distance "x" relative to the wind (where positive represents moving faster than the wind), then it must move three times that distance (i.e. "3x") relative to the road. Suppose the wind has moved distance "y" relative to then road. The speed of the vehicle relative to the wind ("x") plus the speed of the wind relative to the road ("y") also gives the speed of the vehicle relative to the road ("x+y"). Equating the two values for the speed relative to the road we have the equation "x+y=3x". Solving this for "x" we get "x=y/2". This positive value represents movement faster than the wind. Thus the vehicle will travel over the road at 1.5 times the speed of the wind! (Note, that as the ratios get closer to 1:1, the speed increases until a singularity at 1:1).
At least I think that's how it could work. I don't have the gears to construct and test this, and the result doesn't sit well with my physics intuition. I'd love to see someone build this gear variant and see if it works. (Though I might suggest they start with a fairly high gear ratio to keep the relative speeds low and reduce strain on the mechanism.) If it does work, I suspect this sort of gear mechanism is already known and has a name. Too bad I know have any mechanical engineers that might know what it would be called.
Sorry to self reply, but they also claim it can self start so to get it started the propeller can't be getting energy from the wheels either (as they are stopped). It is all very strange.
Except that is not what the DDWFTTW people are claiming. They claim that the propeller is propelling the vehicle not acting as a turbine that sends energy to the wheels.
If you think about it, at the point when the vehicle catches up to the speed of the wind the propeller can't act as a turbine as relative air speed is zero.
(Note, I'm not sure I believe their claims, but I'm pretty sure that is what they are claiming.)
Aren't Time Warner Cable and Warner Brothers owned by the same company? Couldn't this motion come back to bite them if WB ever wants to sue TWC customers?
(On the other hand, maybe their plan is to make it hard for their competitors to sue, but helpfully provide customer details whenever WB asks.)
Maybe throttle the user based on that user's usage and not based on the traffic type.
Paracetamol (a.k.a Tylenol or Acetaminophen) is not Aspirin. But otherwise your point remains.
know what that land will be used for? Growing trees
Nah, I'd just grow cows on it instead. Yum ... methane.
You didn't read the actual speech did you? If not, you are speaking from ignorance.
You aren't even familiar with the speaking style of the Pope are you? If you were, then your critical thinking stills should have sent up red flags all over the place that the summary was terribly distorted. In fact what the Pope said was basically the opposite of what the summary claimed.
But I guess I should expect this. On slashdot, people will believe anything negative claimed about that Pope. (Hey, for once atheists and evangelicals agree on something.)
Not the only case. Don't forget Immaculate Conception. And technically those were after the doctrine was elaborated in its current form. I has been implicitly there ever since the council of Jerusalem.
One of the first cases is stating that the Virgin Mary's body went to heaven after she died. Which is plainly a crock of shit, if you aren't one of the faithful cultists.
If you believe that Jesus' body went to heaven after he died (after all that is in the Bible), why is it so hard to believe that Mary also did the same?
If you don't believe, that is fine, but that doesn't really raise it to "rock of shit" levels.
... and only on faith and morals and only on things that related to the entire church. There have been something like 20 occurrences where all the conditions are met.
Excellent summary by brpetertotleben. There is no excuse for the dissemination of cluelessness that tcd004's summary perpetuates.
This would be a grand opportunity to decide once and for all whether internet purchases can be practically taxed
Having the fed "decide once and for all" is exactly what is wrong with federal encroachment on state rights. In this case because it is an enumerated power and it is interstate, I actually agree that the fed needs to settle at least the interstate part of the issue but "once and for all" is a very dangerous justification. While I'm sure you would never misuse it, plenty of others have.
As a warrant is only requested in 1 and 2.
Can anyone explain what this distinction really means? I thought "demonstrating to a court" was the point of a warrant.
Also, why would the coalition want to make such a distinction? I could understand the government or law enforcement trying to put in these kinds of weasel words, but I don't understand the coalition putting those words in their statement of principles. Any ideas why?
This might be perfectly reasonable, but why does this have to be written into the law? Agency/Department rules seem like a more appropriate way to handle this.