If you're any kind of nerd, you ought to be at least a little curious. How well does full desktop Windows run on a Pi? WoA has x86 emulation, by the way, so you can run x86 apps on your Pi with this. I don't expect you'll be playing Crysis on it, but again, curious how well that will work.
What it's actually good for beyond a technical curiosity, that' remains to be seen.
To be fair, without actually reading the book, it's hard to completely rule out that there isn't some sort of meaningful argument in there, but on the face of it, it does seem pretty retarded. If there's an unfavourable trend occurring, then as a society, we tend to note that trend and do something about it. If population is growing too fast, we undertake education programmes to teach people about contraception and so forth. Conversely if the birth rate is too low, we provide incentives, for example through tax and benefits systems, to encourage people to have more kids. Why we would in the future suddenly stop responding to ongoing trends, or somehow fail to come up with effective responses, seems a bit of a mystery at this point.
So, maybe there's some kind of point there, but personally I remain far more worried about too may people on the planet than too few.
Even people who are serious about photography care about their phone camera, because that's the camera they have on them at all times. Inevitably even the keenest photographer will find himself wanting to shoot something when he doesn't have his DSLR to hand, and in that situation will want the best result possible with his phone.
Mercury travels a long way, for example you can see in this infographic that a lot of Chinese mercury emissions end up in the USA.
Come to think of it, that's probably what's yanking Trump's chain here - can't have American babies being poisoned by Chinese mercury when they could have good old-fashioned American mercury instead! America first, right?
Sophisticated adjective 1. [...] 2.(of a machine, system, or technique) developed to a high degree of complexity.
The method only has to be complicated to be appropriately described as "sophisticated", it does not matter how the aforesaid complex method was arrived at; intelligence is not required. Evolution comes up with plenty of sophisticated solutions without using intelligence.
And you know what? It's not just as good as any cinema... it's better. Because an 8-foot screen from a sensible distance away (the calculator I found says 17 feet) fills your vision just the same while also offering a res that they'd need 8-16K or greater on an humongous screen to match, and most cinemas aren't that.
Sorry, but this is bogus. What matters is pixels per degree field of view. If your projector is 1920x1080, and it's giving you say 120 degrees horizontal field of view at your viewing distance, then a cinema screen viewed at a distance that's also giving you 120 degrees horizontal only also needs to have 1920 pixels horizontal resolution to match your projector.
I can see that the company itself has historical significance, but it still exists, and FTA "The Ampex sign is going into storage in case somebody wants it. (The current incarnation of Ampex wasn’t interested.)". If Ampex itself isn't interested in the sign, then it's indeed probably time to let it go.
Firstly, they're not talking about irradiating the food that ends up on your plate. They're talking about using radiation to increase natural mutation rates in the process of developing new strains. Crops subsequently grown from those strains are in no way "irradiated".
Secondly, there are lots of different kinds of radiation. Sunlight is radiation, and it is mutagenic, hence skin cancer if you don't cover up. It's highly unlikely that they are using the kind of radiation that leaves things radioactive for this kind of thing, they'll be using gamma rays or weak x-rays. All your looking for is a mutation rate a few times higher than would occur naturally in sunlight, and the plants would at no stage be radioactive.
You can run what you like on your phone. Google is perfectly entitle to choose what it allows in its app store, however if you have a burning desire to run malware-infested crypto-mining apps (or any other kind of restricted apps for that matter), you can get them from an alternative app store, or sideload the apk.
I read the article, and an awful lot of the paragraphs are like "Fuchsia could..." and "There are some signs..." etc. I guess it's interesting to know how many people are working on it, that was the main actual "detail" I got from the article, most of the rest was just more speculation.
Welcome to the clickbait age. "Widely used leukemia drug may help slow spread of other cancers also" might get some clicks in bio-medical circles, but it wouldn't draw the clicks from the wider public. But make it sound like a compound in common foods has been discovered to be linked to spreading cancer, and watch the ad impressions roll in. Even relatively respectable publications just can't resist that kind of thing these days.
I said in so many words that TFA is a copy-pasted press release, with links to the most important part - the images - missing, and no attribution. Which part of that do you consider "fuzzy"?
I don't do audiobooks, but my car stereo is by far my best quality audio equipment, and the car is the only place I can listen to music at a decent volume without pissing someone off. I enjoy my (admittedly short 25 minute) commute, and I prefer leaving the house to work. I have a very clear mental distinction between work mode and relax mode, and the commute makes a nice transition between the two.
It is a particularly crappy post. There's not much to the story except for the images, which as you say were not included (bar one) or linked. And science stories should always post references; none in this story.
I found a set of images accompanying the press release on the Hubble site, accompanying the press release which this story regurgitated.
Wow, I should have known someone would already be on the case, that stuff is impressive. And I like that those scientists actually mention the image enhancement tech from Blade Runner in their paper.
You can't get back detail that is missing from a low resolution image, so you can't go e.g. from an SD resolution movie to a 4K one, or at least the result won't look like a movie shot in 4K. Conventional upscaling is basically interpolate-and-sharpen, and it gives only a minor improvement. But while you can't get back the original missing detail, what you could in theory do is generate plausible synthetic detail.
Since this technique seems to involve building up the image through a series of increasing resolutions, I'm wondering if instead of generating a completely synthetic image, you could take a low resolution frame as the starting point, and use similar methods to add plausible synthetic detail. I would have thought that that would actually be a lot easier to generate a good result than if you're trarting from scratch to create a completely synthetic image.
Could it be that our Kazaa-era porn favourites will one day be viewable in 4K quality after all?
There is no rational basis to predict the future behaviour of bitcoin, so if you treat it as an investment, i.e. buy in and hope/assume it will increase in value, understand that you are gambling, not investing. I say that as someone who is doing exactly that right now. I had been on a policy of ending each trading session with only cash in my trading account, expecting btc to potentially crash after events in recent weeks, and while I did make some money trading, I would have made five times as much if I had just held bitcoin until today. So I decided to become a gambler for a while and went all in on btc a few days ago. I have a fixed target to cash out at though, and as I'm only trading for fun with a few grand, I can afford to take the risk.
If they're just counting money spent on buying apps, then I'm 100% with you.
If they're also counting in-app purchases and money spent via apps, then it could add up. Think people ordering fast food, buying stuff from Amazon and eBay, Uber rides etc etc.
And a quick look at the article; "And, it expects the average app spend — including app-store purchases, advertising spend and, most importantly, commerce — to increase from $379 per person to $1,008 in 2021." So they are indeed counting those things, that's "commerce". So it's not so crazy at all; we're mostly talking about money people already spend, only they'll increasingly be buying the same products and services through apps rather than traditional means, that's all.
Bitcoin is on the verge of losing its position as the dominant virtual currency
In terms of actually being used as a currency, i.e. people using it to buy and sell things, I don't think I've personally come across anywhere accepting Ether. I've bought software, VPN service, pharmaceuticals (no, the legal kind) with bitcoin, which seems to be widely accepted. Surely before you can say that Ether is replacing bitcoin as the "dominant virtual currency", it would have to gain widespread acceptance as an actual currency, rather than just something to get speculators excited.
Slashdot Mirror
+1 informative if my mod points hadn't just run out.
Are you saying it's turtles all the way down?
If you're any kind of nerd, you ought to be at least a little curious. How well does full desktop Windows run on a Pi? WoA has x86 emulation, by the way, so you can run x86 apps on your Pi with this. I don't expect you'll be playing Crysis on it, but again, curious how well that will work.
What it's actually good for beyond a technical curiosity, that' remains to be seen.
To be fair, without actually reading the book, it's hard to completely rule out that there isn't some sort of meaningful argument in there, but on the face of it, it does seem pretty retarded. If there's an unfavourable trend occurring, then as a society, we tend to note that trend and do something about it. If population is growing too fast, we undertake education programmes to teach people about contraception and so forth. Conversely if the birth rate is too low, we provide incentives, for example through tax and benefits systems, to encourage people to have more kids. Why we would in the future suddenly stop responding to ongoing trends, or somehow fail to come up with effective responses, seems a bit of a mystery at this point.
So, maybe there's some kind of point there, but personally I remain far more worried about too may people on the planet than too few.
Even people who are serious about photography care about their phone camera, because that's the camera they have on them at all times. Inevitably even the keenest photographer will find himself wanting to shoot something when he doesn't have his DSLR to hand, and in that situation will want the best result possible with his phone.
If you donâ(TM)t know what youâ(TM)re doing [...]
Oh, the irony...
Mercury travels a long way, for example you can see in this infographic that a lot of Chinese mercury emissions end up in the USA.
Come to think of it, that's probably what's yanking Trump's chain here - can't have American babies being poisoned by Chinese mercury when they could have good old-fashioned American mercury instead! America first, right?
Seems fine to me.
The method only has to be complicated to be appropriately described as "sophisticated", it does not matter how the aforesaid complex method was arrived at; intelligence is not required. Evolution comes up with plenty of sophisticated solutions without using intelligence.
And you know what? It's not just as good as any cinema... it's better. Because an 8-foot screen from a sensible distance away (the calculator I found says 17 feet) fills your vision just the same while also offering a res that they'd need 8-16K or greater on an humongous screen to match, and most cinemas aren't that.
Sorry, but this is bogus. What matters is pixels per degree field of view. If your projector is 1920x1080, and it's giving you say 120 degrees horizontal field of view at your viewing distance, then a cinema screen viewed at a distance that's also giving you 120 degrees horizontal only also needs to have 1920 pixels horizontal resolution to match your projector.
I can see that the company itself has historical significance, but it still exists, and FTA "The Ampex sign is going into storage in case somebody wants it. (The current incarnation of Ampex wasn’t interested.)". If Ampex itself isn't interested in the sign, then it's indeed probably time to let it go.
Firstly, they're not talking about irradiating the food that ends up on your plate. They're talking about using radiation to increase natural mutation rates in the process of developing new strains. Crops subsequently grown from those strains are in no way "irradiated".
Secondly, there are lots of different kinds of radiation. Sunlight is radiation, and it is mutagenic, hence skin cancer if you don't cover up. It's highly unlikely that they are using the kind of radiation that leaves things radioactive for this kind of thing, they'll be using gamma rays or weak x-rays. All your looking for is a mutation rate a few times higher than would occur naturally in sunlight, and the plants would at no stage be radioactive.
You can run what you like on your phone. Google is perfectly entitle to choose what it allows in its app store, however if you have a burning desire to run malware-infested crypto-mining apps (or any other kind of restricted apps for that matter), you can get them from an alternative app store, or sideload the apk.
I read the article, and an awful lot of the paragraphs are like "Fuchsia could ..." and "There are some signs ..." etc. I guess it's interesting to know how many people are working on it, that was the main actual "detail" I got from the article, most of the rest was just more speculation.
Welcome to the clickbait age. "Widely used leukemia drug may help slow spread of other cancers also" might get some clicks in bio-medical circles, but it wouldn't draw the clicks from the wider public. But make it sound like a compound in common foods has been discovered to be linked to spreading cancer, and watch the ad impressions roll in. Even relatively respectable publications just can't resist that kind of thing these days.
It would revolutionize the industry, but there are a ton of technical issues to overcome.
Well, since it appears to be being done right now, presumably technology has moved on since your EE grad class in 1988?
I said in so many words that TFA is a copy-pasted press release, with links to the most important part - the images - missing, and no attribution. Which part of that do you consider "fuzzy"?
I don't do audiobooks, but my car stereo is by far my best quality audio equipment, and the car is the only place I can listen to music at a decent volume without pissing someone off. I enjoy my (admittedly short 25 minute) commute, and I prefer leaving the house to work. I have a very clear mental distinction between work mode and relax mode, and the commute makes a nice transition between the two.
*I found a set of images on the Hubble site, accompanying the press release which this story regurgitated.
Argh. You know what I meant.
It is a particularly crappy post. There's not much to the story except for the images, which as you say were not included (bar one) or linked. And science stories should always post references; none in this story.
I found a set of images accompanying the press release on the Hubble site, accompanying the press release which this story regurgitated.
Wow, I should have known someone would already be on the case, that stuff is impressive. And I like that those scientists actually mention the image enhancement tech from Blade Runner in their paper.
You can't get back detail that is missing from a low resolution image, so you can't go e.g. from an SD resolution movie to a 4K one, or at least the result won't look like a movie shot in 4K. Conventional upscaling is basically interpolate-and-sharpen, and it gives only a minor improvement. But while you can't get back the original missing detail, what you could in theory do is generate plausible synthetic detail.
Since this technique seems to involve building up the image through a series of increasing resolutions, I'm wondering if instead of generating a completely synthetic image, you could take a low resolution frame as the starting point, and use similar methods to add plausible synthetic detail. I would have thought that that would actually be a lot easier to generate a good result than if you're trarting from scratch to create a completely synthetic image.
Could it be that our Kazaa-era porn favourites will one day be viewable in 4K quality after all?
There is no rational basis to predict the future behaviour of bitcoin, so if you treat it as an investment, i.e. buy in and hope/assume it will increase in value, understand that you are gambling, not investing. I say that as someone who is doing exactly that right now. I had been on a policy of ending each trading session with only cash in my trading account, expecting btc to potentially crash after events in recent weeks, and while I did make some money trading, I would have made five times as much if I had just held bitcoin until today. So I decided to become a gambler for a while and went all in on btc a few days ago. I have a fixed target to cash out at though, and as I'm only trading for fun with a few grand, I can afford to take the risk.
It'd just be slow news if it was only originally on Ars, but it was posted right here on slashdot too. Same story from a month ago.
If they're just counting money spent on buying apps, then I'm 100% with you.
If they're also counting in-app purchases and money spent via apps, then it could add up. Think people ordering fast food, buying stuff from Amazon and eBay, Uber rides etc etc.
And a quick look at the article; "And, it expects the average app spend — including app-store purchases, advertising spend and, most importantly, commerce — to increase from $379 per person to $1,008 in 2021." So they are indeed counting those things, that's "commerce". So it's not so crazy at all; we're mostly talking about money people already spend, only they'll increasingly be buying the same products and services through apps rather than traditional means, that's all.
Bitcoin is on the verge of losing its position as the dominant virtual currency
In terms of actually being used as a currency, i.e. people using it to buy and sell things, I don't think I've personally come across anywhere accepting Ether. I've bought software, VPN service, pharmaceuticals (no, the legal kind) with bitcoin, which seems to be widely accepted. Surely before you can say that Ether is replacing bitcoin as the "dominant virtual currency", it would have to gain widespread acceptance as an actual currency, rather than just something to get speculators excited.