Start / All Programs / Accessories / Accessibility / Magnifier
This will magnify the area around your mouse without too much impact on everything else. Best case scenario: No need for a new monitor. (Maybe a second monitor just for the magnification?) Worst case scenario: It does nothing to help you and you've spent no money to find that out.
But you wouldn't really need even SD, much less HD for that, would you?
Yes, you would.
From what I've seen they use pretty crude story boards or very basic computer animation just to get the fell for it, and then after everything is approved go full res.
No, this is not true. This is why they hire concept illustrators. In fact, most of the concept paintings end up being a lot higher res than the film itself. As technology progresses, the quality of the illustrations and the pre-viz improves as well. Trust me, the more that can be done to do things like speed up rendering, the more of it you'll see before it hits post.
The only use would probably be for sales men and designers who want to show their work in different lighting to a potential customer... but even then they could render that ahead of time. I just don't get it, could someone enlighten me?
They can only do that ahead of time if they're the ones making the aesthetic decisions. If I wanted to show the director of a movie an environment and get his feedback, I could make the changes right there for him to see and get the OK right away.
So now all halfwit crimial needs to get his alibi is: use his iPhone to RDP to daddy's computer and post to facebook?!
Well he'd also need to prevent the phone from talking to any of the cellular towers over there. You're actually better off using an iPod Touch but ONLY if you can get on wifi near there.:P
The problem is that just about any idiot can get mod points on/. It doesn't make their mods correct - just there.
Funny timing. We're having this conversation over here. According to the dudes with the mod points, the Slashdot moderation system is one of the best and any idiot can mod. Heh.
It does make one wonder who is the true enemy... content pirates (those who take content for free), or those groups attempting to stop them and produce said content.
Before you could purchase VHS movies, Jack Valenti compared the video tape to Jack the Ripper. I'm not sure why you had any doubt. Most 'protections' are in place for fear of piracy, not due to actual events. Of course, by increasing the value of non-'protected' content....
It shapes the public opinion. "I don't know what I'm talking about, so I'm going to go with whatever public opinion says and get that word 'Informative' next to my name!" "Oh, look, BSOD jokes get modded up!" "Chair throwing!" "I've never used an iPhone but it sucks!" "I'm glad I don't own a TV anymore!" "Save Farscape!"
No, I like slashdot because the modders here generally see through the bullshit people think they are passing as genuine opinion.
Oh, please. The modders are people who have had good karma for a while. They're not trained staff. They mod up or down based on their opinion. It's like being back in grade school at recess.
The Slashdot moderation system has its flaws, but it seems to work better than most of the alternatives out there.
The main problem with the Slashdot moderation system is the noise it generates. People fall over each other trying to get that 'Insightful' mod, hence nearly every smart phone thread gets a modded up "I just want a phone that makes calls!" comment.
Ah yes, another one of these stories. Expect to see some references to M$, people defending GPL and people advocating BSD. All in all, everyone will agree that respecting open source licenses is very important. Next thread, something about RIAA, same people demanding their right to download copyrighted music.
Pathetic.
Result of proper GPL usage: More software for the public to use.
Result of copyright abuse: Less content in the public domain.
One is about the world that is, the other is about the world that should be. What's pathetic is the lack of understanding you have of the people you're criticizing.
Apparently he knows more about it than you do. Try watching something with them. The blue side's so dark it causes a big shift in what you're seeing. The result is very monochromatic and not very believable to boot.
On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.
That does not cover the entire scope of cases where a potential customer has acquired content that the industry has not approved.
I now expect 4 dozen posts, making car analogies, expounding on the "false" argument of lost sales, and pointing out that I'm likely an astroturfing RIAA/MPAA shill.
So does that mean we're gonna see a bunch of retractions from all the people in the other thread saying how evil Apple was for disabling support for a CPU they don't even use on their OS?
I hope one day Slashdotters are known for being that classy. One day they'll figure out that owning up to something like that can earn them 'Insightful' mods, too.
We don't agree at all. I'm saying that Asimov's assumptions were wrong — they've been invalidated by subsequent AI research.
No, they haven't. They don't even have a model for a 'thinking machine' yet.
Asimov's stories are full of hand-waving. I mean, brains made out of "positrons"?
He gave it a silly name, BFD. Did you happen to catch the rest of how it worked? It's only 'hand-waving' to you because you think the technology's already in its infancy right now and because the technology he described sounds analog. The talk of 'potentials' makes it sound like the thing has radio tubes inside. Get past the terminology and what he describes sounds more like a neural net grown from actual experiences as opposed to a huge number of rules and algorithms.
From what I've read, some of the early research being done is heading in that direction. It's not "AI" it's a learning computer and it's being taught by children.
Please. Nobody knows what a truly artificial intelligence would be like. They probably wouldn't resemble SF robots, which are just human caricatures, with a few machine-like behaviors so you'll think of them as mechanical. If you assume there are cognitive models that are profoundly different from the ones humans use (and any animal behaviorist will tell you that there are) a machine intelligence built from scratch would probably be something completely new. The classic work on that theme is William Gibson's Neuromancer.
Believe it or not, we actually more-or-less agree. We don't know because the technology's not here. That's my point, though, can't say it's dated if the technology hasn't come around.
It's precisely because AI has progressed less than Asimov assumed it would that his stories are dated. See my previous post.
Right. And see my post: Current methods of AI won't likely result in a sentient android. There's a very good chance that when the technology does arrive, it'll be strikingly similar to what he wrote about.
On another note I think it's amusing that in a conversation about Artifical Intelligence we've both made redundant posts.:P
Asimov's robot stories were pretty groundbreaking when they were written, but are now thoroughly dated. The dude didn't know jack about AI. He's hardly to blame, since the discipline was in its infancy.
Uh... it's not like we have androids running around today working in a similar fashion, but with behavior different from what Asimov described. I'm not sure why you think anything we know about AI applies at all.
From what we know today, the most likely outcome is that any 'robot' we develop that even vaguely resembles R. Daneel will have 'learned' how to become sentient, as opposed to being programmed. In that case, 'laws' aren't so abstract and they could very likely work, at least in a layman's sense, like Asimov described. Modern AI would have little to do with it, this would be an entirely different architecture that probably wouldn't even be programmed in a literal sense. Actually, in all likelihood, we'd have the same sorts of problems making them safe and reliable to use that Asimov wrote about. In any event, we're not even close to living in a time where Asimov's robot characters wouldn't be considered science fiction.
We'll find out at some point in the future. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and in 20 years I'll have a robot butler using an x86 processor.
Slashdot Mirror
Putting memory behind a drive controller is just like making your gas pedal respond to a buggy whip (OK, car analogies aren't my strong point).
Yeah, no kiddin. I mean if the whip has bugs in it, isn't that a driver issue?
Start / All Programs / Accessories / Accessibility / Magnifier
This will magnify the area around your mouse without too much impact on everything else. Best case scenario: No need for a new monitor. (Maybe a second monitor just for the magnification?) Worst case scenario: It does nothing to help you and you've spent no money to find that out.
But you wouldn't really need even SD, much less HD for that, would you?
Yes, you would.
From what I've seen they use pretty crude story boards or very basic computer animation just to get the fell for it, and then after everything is approved go full res.
No, this is not true. This is why they hire concept illustrators. In fact, most of the concept paintings end up being a lot higher res than the film itself. As technology progresses, the quality of the illustrations and the pre-viz improves as well. Trust me, the more that can be done to do things like speed up rendering, the more of it you'll see before it hits post.
The only use would probably be for sales men and designers who want to show their work in different lighting to a potential customer... but even then they could render that ahead of time. I just don't get it, could someone enlighten me?
They can only do that ahead of time if they're the ones making the aesthetic decisions. If I wanted to show the director of a movie an environment and get his feedback, I could make the changes right there for him to see and get the OK right away.
With a message saying Page cannot be displayed. Not that impressive.
Did you try zooming in?
So now all halfwit crimial needs to get his alibi is: use his iPhone to RDP to daddy's computer and post to facebook?!
Well he'd also need to prevent the phone from talking to any of the cellular towers over there. You're actually better off using an iPod Touch but ONLY if you can get on wifi near there. :P
I was going to say something snarky, but your chosen nickname mixed with this topic is... funny. Heh.
Another part to get lost. Cool.
So you're using an iMac, right?
by Anonymous Coward (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that just about any idiot can get mod points on /. It doesn't make their mods correct - just there.
Funny timing. We're having this conversation over here. According to the dudes with the mod points, the Slashdot moderation system is one of the best and any idiot can mod. Heh.
It does make one wonder who is the true enemy... content pirates (those who take content for free), or those groups attempting to stop them and produce said content.
Before you could purchase VHS movies, Jack Valenti compared the video tape to Jack the Ripper. I'm not sure why you had any doubt. Most 'protections' are in place for fear of piracy, not due to actual events. Of course, by increasing the value of non-'protected' content....
No it doesn't. It encourages the public opinion.
It shapes the public opinion. "I don't know what I'm talking about, so I'm going to go with whatever public opinion says and get that word 'Informative' next to my name!" "Oh, look, BSOD jokes get modded up!" "Chair throwing!" "I've never used an iPhone but it sucks!" "I'm glad I don't own a TV anymore!" "Save Farscape!"
No, I like slashdot because the modders here generally see through the bullshit people think they are passing as genuine opinion.
Oh, please. The modders are people who have had good karma for a while. They're not trained staff. They mod up or down based on their opinion. It's like being back in grade school at recess.
The Slashdot moderation system has its flaws, but it seems to work better than most of the alternatives out there.
The main problem with the Slashdot moderation system is the noise it generates. People fall over each other trying to get that 'Insightful' mod, hence nearly every smart phone thread gets a modded up "I just want a phone that makes calls!" comment.
Slashdot's moderation system encourages posing.
Do not conflate the GPL with the public domain.
For the record, I didn't. ;)
Ah yes, another one of these stories. Expect to see some references to M$, people defending GPL and people advocating BSD. All in all, everyone will agree that respecting open source licenses is very important. Next thread, something about RIAA, same people demanding their right to download copyrighted music.
Pathetic.
Result of proper GPL usage: More software for the public to use.
Result of copyright abuse: Less content in the public domain.
One is about the world that is, the other is about the world that should be. What's pathetic is the lack of understanding you have of the people you're criticizing.
Blue and Yellow glasses. No color 3D. Nothing to see here, move along.
Apparently you have no idea what you're talking about.
Apparently he knows more about it than you do. Try watching something with them. The blue side's so dark it causes a big shift in what you're seeing. The result is very monochromatic and not very believable to boot.
On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.
That does not cover the entire scope of cases where a potential customer has acquired content that the industry has not approved.
I now expect 4 dozen posts, making car analogies, expounding on the "false" argument of lost sales, and pointing out that I'm likely an astroturfing RIAA/MPAA shill.
See above.
So does that mean we're gonna see a bunch of retractions from all the people in the other thread saying how evil Apple was for disabling support for a CPU they don't even use on their OS?
I hope one day Slashdotters are known for being that classy. One day they'll figure out that owning up to something like that can earn them 'Insightful' mods, too.
Wooo Fire Sale!!
Windows 7 had 1.9% market share before launch?
You and the dude who wasted a mod-point on your post missed several months of news about Windows 7 and its free public beta.
We don't agree at all. I'm saying that Asimov's assumptions were wrong — they've been invalidated by subsequent AI research.
No, they haven't. They don't even have a model for a 'thinking machine' yet.
Asimov's stories are full of hand-waving. I mean, brains made out of "positrons"?
He gave it a silly name, BFD. Did you happen to catch the rest of how it worked? It's only 'hand-waving' to you because you think the technology's already in its infancy right now and because the technology he described sounds analog. The talk of 'potentials' makes it sound like the thing has radio tubes inside. Get past the terminology and what he describes sounds more like a neural net grown from actual experiences as opposed to a huge number of rules and algorithms.
From what I've read, some of the early research being done is heading in that direction. It's not "AI" it's a learning computer and it's being taught by children.
Fun stuff!
Please. Nobody knows what a truly artificial intelligence would be like. They probably wouldn't resemble SF robots, which are just human caricatures, with a few machine-like behaviors so you'll think of them as mechanical. If you assume there are cognitive models that are profoundly different from the ones humans use (and any animal behaviorist will tell you that there are) a machine intelligence built from scratch would probably be something completely new. The classic work on that theme is William Gibson's Neuromancer.
Believe it or not, we actually more-or-less agree. We don't know because the technology's not here. That's my point, though, can't say it's dated if the technology hasn't come around.
It's precisely because AI has progressed less than Asimov assumed it would that his stories are dated. See my previous post.
Right. And see my post: Current methods of AI won't likely result in a sentient android. There's a very good chance that when the technology does arrive, it'll be strikingly similar to what he wrote about.
On another note I think it's amusing that in a conversation about Artifical Intelligence we've both made redundant posts. :P
Asimov's robot stories were pretty groundbreaking when they were written, but are now thoroughly dated. The dude didn't know jack about AI. He's hardly to blame, since the discipline was in its infancy.
Uh ... it's not like we have androids running around today working in a similar fashion, but with behavior different from what Asimov described. I'm not sure why you think anything we know about AI applies at all.
From what we know today, the most likely outcome is that any 'robot' we develop that even vaguely resembles R. Daneel will have 'learned' how to become sentient, as opposed to being programmed. In that case, 'laws' aren't so abstract and they could very likely work, at least in a layman's sense, like Asimov described. Modern AI would have little to do with it, this would be an entirely different architecture that probably wouldn't even be programmed in a literal sense. Actually, in all likelihood, we'd have the same sorts of problems making them safe and reliable to use that Asimov wrote about. In any event, we're not even close to living in a time where Asimov's robot characters wouldn't be considered science fiction.
We'll find out at some point in the future. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and in 20 years I'll have a robot butler using an x86 processor.
Yo mama is so evolved...
the London black cab drivers
Hey! It's African American dude!
It's African Englo ya git!