idiot. being rich did not allow you to circumvent feudal law or custom. you still had to take up your father's profession. period. dont talk about things that you dont know enough about.
also vinci was among the few of noble or considerably wealthy origin. you will notice that this was accounted for, if you read the 5-6 words that follow 'da vinci' in the post you replied to again. and next time, dont reply before reading and comprehending enough.
da vinci was the exception among his colleagues. in case you have noticed, i did not say 'leonardo da vinci' but instead 'leonardo da vinci did not till the fields or other masters and artisans'.
it is appalling that you are able to come up with such a short sighted retort about da vinci. someone who is aware that da vinci was a son of a nobleman, would know that almost entirety of his colleagues of his time were not. and, someone who is able to be aware of such things, would not try to invalidate an argument by selecting what he wants to see like a fool.
'fortuitous' circumstance does not pass in medieval law. even if you are the son of a well-to-do bourgeoise, you had to take up your father's profession. talent surpassed this mandatory custom/law, as i said however.
thank you for bringing a half-thought argument and causing unnecessary exchange of words.
Looking back as far as 15th century or further is pointless: people had very little choice about what field they went into, it was mostly determined by your birth. Today people can actually make something of themselves.
irrelevant - people who had talent, had the liberty to do anything they pleased, more or less. thats why leonardo da vinci did not till the fields or other masters and artisans made shoes and so on. in renaissance, the need for skills in demand was so high that it even surpassed the medieval law and customs. so, someone with the right talent being born then, was much more luckier than someone being born today. and that's what the example illustrates : even in a period like renaissance, when talents surpassed even medieval law, you would not be able to 'make it' if you were smart, but was not born with the needed inclinations/talents.
this extreme example illustrates the problem. the same mechanic applies even to today. today we are not obliged to surpass medieval law to be something. but, the main problem still exist - only talents/inclinations that are in demand 'make it'. if you are born with something else, you may not have to make shoes for a living, but even if you do something rather in demand and make a good living, there will be a high cost to pay - accumulating stress because of forcing oneself to something that s/he is not inclined/talented to/for. and we know where it ends up - prescriptions, symptoms, problems, restrained relationships, illnesses, and ultimately..... well you know. lets not mention what everyone is aware of.
its not 'pessimism'. its statistics. and yes, everything is the fault of someone else. namely, the 5% top of the population who has 72% in total of income and assets - including wealth generation tools. the rest ? 85% bottom of society (almost everyone, you see) get only 15% from income and wealth in total.
yes indeed. its really the fault of someone else in this situation. in a dog eat dog world, you end up with one big fat dog. we are just 2-3 steps away from that. now we are at the 'a few big fat dogs' stage.
i would like to remind you that, if i had had been a college student who has chosen philosophy or women's studies and therefore i was unemployed, that would not justify your arguments.
because, anyone who is dare able to say 'philosophy is not needed', deserves a sound kick in the face. the current capitalist mechanic of corporate exploitation not needing something to make immediate profits in short term, does not mean that that something is not needed.
and furthermore, 'getting rich' by 'hard work' is the biggest piece of fraud that is perpetrated by current system. can you think that someone who is owning majority or even noticeable share on a megacorporation, got rich through 'hard work' ?
now, if you redefine hard work to be 'making others work and taking the fruits of labor to 90% percentage', then it becomes possible. but then again, in the last 50 years that has also been circumvented - those who are owning the means are making a tiny minority (mostly from middle class) work for them to make others work for them, and reaping the profits. in short, we send our sons, daughters to business colleges to get high degrees and be high level managers, even executives to make all the people work for the sake of a minority owner percentage. no different than the peasants sending their sons to be lord's soldiers, or tax collectors.
That's what i have been telling my colleagues (all of them are in i.t., or i.t. companies) whenever the issues occupy wall street is raising came up. Almost all of them have been saying 'i have worked "hard" and made myself. everyone can' - because they are living in a bubble. Their skill set and aptitude, matches the time period they are living in. We are living in an era where skills/inclinations that i.t. requires are in high demand, and therefore we are in luck. Had we lived in an earlier era, we would be hard pressed to make a living.
And no - dont ever fall into the pit of thinking that 'because i am smart, i could make it' -> it does not work that way. Talent/inclination works differently than 'smart'. Cognitive powers does not have direct relevance to the inclinations you have - there are a lot of smart people, scientists too, who find i.t. work quite stressing, irritating and unbearable. and vice versa.
So we are lucky. if we had been born back in 15th century, we would be shining a feudal lord's shoes maybe. with all our smarts, but without anything on that time and age to support our particular talents.
Same the situation with majority of people - things that were in huge demand 50 years ago, are not in demand today. Things were inconceivable 50 years ago, are in demand today. But, dont err in thinking that 'adaptation is necessary' -> it is always this way - in a society with ills of capitalism, there is always huge demand for a very little percentage of talents, and the demand for the rest is never enough to feed the population.
And in this environment, those who 'made it' because they were lucky tend to think that they made it because of their 'talents'. Nay. you were lucky to hit your mother's womb in the perfect time.
It is utterly stupid to live in bubbles, devoid of perception of reality, and then to apply one's own bubble to reality, and be content with it. middle class today (which is a pathetic 10% in usa as of this moment btw) does that. and they are no different in position than the clerks, guards who did the feudal lord's bidding back in middle ages, for slightly elevated comforts.
Give 72% of total available wealth to the 5% of the population, and then do $40 cuts, $40 raises etc...
nothing can fix things in a system that gives 72% of everything to 5%, and gives the rest 95% of the population only 28%. oh, and the bottom 85% in that society, gets only 15% to boot.
effecting evolution by breeding dogs in between each other cannot be compared to directly poking at the genes of the dogs in an unrestricted fashion. not to mention how stuff like pitbulls worked out, even with breeding.
And we just rationalized totally ransacking natural evolution for profit. Evolution, mind that. a process that takes millions of years on average for mid-to higher species, has just been made a lego toy. A careful balance that has materialized after billions of years, is now at the mercy of whatever results the unbridled genetic modification for profit, will bring. Especially since the modified are breeding with the unmodified in fields, totally exterminating the natural species by mutating them. (this is probably one of the reasons why norwegians set up a vault to preserve seeds in norway some time ago)
Ah, did i tell you it was recently discovered that modification in crops was causing their pests to evolve and develop equally rapidly ? (was on slashdot)
Why don't you link research showing the contrary? Or at least research validating your opinion of "24 fps, the magic number"
you gave your answer in your retort to hdmi point below your post. rationalizing it like 'because film has been like that forever' is one step away from rationalizing it as 'film has been like that forever because it was the minimum frame rate that humans were able to interpret moving images forever'. not 5 fps, not 10 fps, but 24 fps.
the fact that you are looking at a 60 hz led/lcd monitor and being comfortable with staring at it, whereas you were uncomfortable using a 60 hz crt monitor back 10 years ago, should be explicative enough for you.
'synthetic images with temporal smoothing' -> oh yeah.
You are using research as doctrine, which is foolish and dangerous.
oh - is it ? why ?
i could as well say that i was a ghostwhisperer, and there were other people too, and someone would ask me to link a research in that direction proving my claim ?
and in response, could i tell them 'you can simply do this experiment' ?
are you aware that the wikipedia article you linked gives NO reference to the SAME claims that are made by gamers in the below form ?
However, this question also does not have a single straight-forward answer. If the image switches between black and white each frame, the image appears to flicker at frame rates slower than 30 FPS (interlaced). In other words, the flicker fusion point, where the eyes see gray instead of flickering tends to be around 60 FPS (inconsistent).
some dudes' master thesis counts as research now ?
a study which polled the other gamer dudes in their department, and ASKED them whether they were able to perceive stuff by the way. yeah.
if i do the same in an overclock forum, i can assure you that i can come up with higher than 100% percentage testimonies to that regard.
that doesnt make it anything scientific. does not modify their biology/physiology either.
im still waiting for the research to prove the bullshit. apart from some gamer dudes polling some other gamer dudes and submitting it as master thesis.
its THAT obvious, THAT well known, THAT common, THAT normal, and yet among the approximately 6 people who called me 'idiot' in this thread after i asked them where was any research that showed people can perceive 30, 40 and 60 fps, have yet to still bring ONE research.
oh, one of them linked to a random website/blog that says the same thing, from some dude's mouth tho. thats what they understand from 'research'.
yes. and now link this idiot ANY research that shows humans are capable of perceiving 30, 40 and 60 fps motion picture differences.
3 people called me 'stupid, idiot etc' in this thread so far, ALL of them have recounted their PERSONAL perceptions/propositions, AFTER i asked them where was the research that supported that proposition just 1 post before.
- 'humans can perceive 30, 40, 60 fps !!!'
- okay where is the research ?
- you are an idiot ! me and my gamer buddies this me and my gamer buddies that, bleh, blah and so on !!!!
and you are not able to see a lcd/led set at 60 hz. why.
the fact that your eye can send 60 hz flickering light on/off situation to your brain does not mean that your brain is able to interpret the picture in front of you at the same rate.
and still, where is the research backing that 60 fps proposition ?
Slashdot Mirror
idiot. being rich did not allow you to circumvent feudal law or custom. you still had to take up your father's profession. period. dont talk about things that you dont know enough about.
also vinci was among the few of noble or considerably wealthy origin. you will notice that this was accounted for, if you read the 5-6 words that follow 'da vinci' in the post you replied to again. and next time, dont reply before reading and comprehending enough.
da vinci was the exception among his colleagues. in case you have noticed, i did not say 'leonardo da vinci' but instead 'leonardo da vinci did not till the fields or other masters and artisans'.
it is appalling that you are able to come up with such a short sighted retort about da vinci. someone who is aware that da vinci was a son of a nobleman, would know that almost entirety of his colleagues of his time were not. and, someone who is able to be aware of such things, would not try to invalidate an argument by selecting what he wants to see like a fool.
'fortuitous' circumstance does not pass in medieval law. even if you are the son of a well-to-do bourgeoise, you had to take up your father's profession. talent surpassed this mandatory custom/law, as i said however.
thank you for bringing a half-thought argument and causing unnecessary exchange of words.
Looking back as far as 15th century or further is pointless: people had very little choice about what field they went into, it was mostly determined by your birth. Today people can actually make something of themselves.
irrelevant - people who had talent, had the liberty to do anything they pleased, more or less. thats why leonardo da vinci did not till the fields or other masters and artisans made shoes and so on. in renaissance, the need for skills in demand was so high that it even surpassed the medieval law and customs. so, someone with the right talent being born then, was much more luckier than someone being born today. and that's what the example illustrates : even in a period like renaissance, when talents surpassed even medieval law, you would not be able to 'make it' if you were smart, but was not born with the needed inclinations/talents.
..... well you know. lets not mention what everyone is aware of.
this extreme example illustrates the problem. the same mechanic applies even to today. today we are not obliged to surpass medieval law to be something. but, the main problem still exist - only talents/inclinations that are in demand 'make it'. if you are born with something else, you may not have to make shoes for a living, but even if you do something rather in demand and make a good living, there will be a high cost to pay - accumulating stress because of forcing oneself to something that s/he is not inclined/talented to/for. and we know where it ends up - prescriptions, symptoms, problems, restrained relationships, illnesses, and ultimately
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
its not 'pessimism'. its statistics. and yes, everything is the fault of someone else. namely, the 5% top of the population who has 72% in total of income and assets - including wealth generation tools. the rest ? 85% bottom of society (almost everyone, you see) get only 15% from income and wealth in total.
yes indeed. its really the fault of someone else in this situation. in a dog eat dog world, you end up with one big fat dog. we are just 2-3 steps away from that. now we are at the 'a few big fat dogs' stage.
i would like to remind you that, if i had had been a college student who has chosen philosophy or women's studies and therefore i was unemployed, that would not justify your arguments.
because, anyone who is dare able to say 'philosophy is not needed', deserves a sound kick in the face. the current capitalist mechanic of corporate exploitation not needing something to make immediate profits in short term, does not mean that that something is not needed.
and furthermore, 'getting rich' by 'hard work' is the biggest piece of fraud that is perpetrated by current system. can you think that someone who is owning majority or even noticeable share on a megacorporation, got rich through 'hard work' ?
now, if you redefine hard work to be 'making others work and taking the fruits of labor to 90% percentage', then it becomes possible. but then again, in the last 50 years that has also been circumvented - those who are owning the means are making a tiny minority (mostly from middle class) work for them to make others work for them, and reaping the profits. in short, we send our sons, daughters to business colleges to get high degrees and be high level managers, even executives to make all the people work for the sake of a minority owner percentage. no different than the peasants sending their sons to be lord's soldiers, or tax collectors.
That's what i have been telling my colleagues (all of them are in i.t., or i.t. companies) whenever the issues occupy wall street is raising came up. Almost all of them have been saying 'i have worked "hard" and made myself. everyone can' - because they are living in a bubble. Their skill set and aptitude, matches the time period they are living in. We are living in an era where skills/inclinations that i.t. requires are in high demand, and therefore we are in luck. Had we lived in an earlier era, we would be hard pressed to make a living.
And no - dont ever fall into the pit of thinking that 'because i am smart, i could make it' -> it does not work that way. Talent/inclination works differently than 'smart'. Cognitive powers does not have direct relevance to the inclinations you have - there are a lot of smart people, scientists too, who find i.t. work quite stressing, irritating and unbearable. and vice versa.
So we are lucky. if we had been born back in 15th century, we would be shining a feudal lord's shoes maybe. with all our smarts, but without anything on that time and age to support our particular talents.
Same the situation with majority of people - things that were in huge demand 50 years ago, are not in demand today. Things were inconceivable 50 years ago, are in demand today. But, dont err in thinking that 'adaptation is necessary' -> it is always this way - in a society with ills of capitalism, there is always huge demand for a very little percentage of talents, and the demand for the rest is never enough to feed the population.
And in this environment, those who 'made it' because they were lucky tend to think that they made it because of their 'talents'. Nay. you were lucky to hit your mother's womb in the perfect time.
It is utterly stupid to live in bubbles, devoid of perception of reality, and then to apply one's own bubble to reality, and be content with it. middle class today (which is a pathetic 10% in usa as of this moment btw) does that. and they are no different in position than the clerks, guards who did the feudal lord's bidding back in middle ages, for slightly elevated comforts.
.... wait .... they were since 5-6 years ago ....
Give 72% of total available wealth to the 5% of the population, and then do $40 cuts, $40 raises etc ...
nothing can fix things in a system that gives 72% of everything to 5%, and gives the rest 95% of the population only 28%. oh, and the bottom 85% in that society, gets only 15% to boot.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
effecting evolution by breeding dogs in between each other cannot be compared to directly poking at the genes of the dogs in an unrestricted fashion. not to mention how stuff like pitbulls worked out, even with breeding.
And we just rationalized totally ransacking natural evolution for profit. Evolution, mind that. a process that takes millions of years on average for mid-to higher species, has just been made a lego toy. A careful balance that has materialized after billions of years, is now at the mercy of whatever results the unbridled genetic modification for profit, will bring. Especially since the modified are breeding with the unmodified in fields, totally exterminating the natural species by mutating them. (this is probably one of the reasons why norwegians set up a vault to preserve seeds in norway some time ago)
Ah, did i tell you it was recently discovered that modification in crops was causing their pests to evolve and develop equally rapidly ? (was on slashdot)
yes ok and now link the biology/neuroscience research that shows human eye-brain is capable of interpreting 30, 40 and 60 fps.
yeees. and where is the research that shows humans are biologically capable of interpreting 60 fps again ? nowhere ? i thought so.
Why don't you link research showing the contrary? Or at least research validating your opinion of "24 fps, the magic number"
you gave your answer in your retort to hdmi point below your post. rationalizing it like 'because film has been like that forever' is one step away from rationalizing it as 'film has been like that forever because it was the minimum frame rate that humans were able to interpret moving images forever'. not 5 fps, not 10 fps, but 24 fps.
the fact that you are looking at a 60 hz led/lcd monitor and being comfortable with staring at it, whereas you were uncomfortable using a 60 hz crt monitor back 10 years ago, should be explicative enough for you.
'synthetic images with temporal smoothing' -> oh yeah.
The flicker fusion threshold for black & white is about 60fps with noticeable variation between individuals.
FLICKER fusion threshold. not image interpretation threshold.
which is why we are comfortable with 60 hz lcd/led monitors, as opposed to being uncomfortable with 60 hertz crt monitors.
You are using research as doctrine, which is foolish and dangerous.
oh - is it ? why ?
i could as well say that i was a ghostwhisperer, and there were other people too, and someone would ask me to link a research in that direction proving my claim ?
and in response, could i tell them 'you can simply do this experiment' ?
However, this question also does not have a single straight-forward answer. If the image switches between black and white each frame, the image appears to flicker at frame rates slower than 30 FPS (interlaced). In other words, the flicker fusion point, where the eyes see gray instead of flickering tends to be around 60 FPS (inconsistent).
where is the reference ?
http://web.cs.wpi.edu/~claypool/papers/fr/fulltext.pdf
some dudes' master thesis counts as research now ?
a study which polled the other gamer dudes in their department, and ASKED them whether they were able to perceive stuff by the way. yeah.
if i do the same in an overclock forum, i can assure you that i can come up with higher than 100% percentage testimonies to that regard.
that doesnt make it anything scientific. does not modify their biology/physiology either.
im still waiting for the research to prove the bullshit. apart from some gamer dudes polling some other gamer dudes and submitting it as master thesis.
its THAT obvious, THAT well known, THAT common, THAT normal, and yet among the approximately 6 people who called me 'idiot' in this thread after i asked them where was any research that showed people can perceive 30, 40 and 60 fps, have yet to still bring ONE research.
oh, one of them linked to a random website/blog that says the same thing, from some dude's mouth tho. thats what they understand from 'research'.
that is not a research. it is some website saying the same thing. do you know what a 'research' is ?
yes. and now link this idiot ANY research that shows humans are capable of perceiving 30, 40 and 60 fps motion picture differences.
3 people called me 'stupid, idiot etc' in this thread so far, ALL of them have recounted their PERSONAL perceptions/propositions, AFTER i asked them where was the research that supported that proposition just 1 post before.
- 'humans can perceive 30, 40, 60 fps !!!'
- okay where is the research ?
- you are an idiot ! me and my gamer buddies this me and my gamer buddies that, bleh, blah and so on !!!!
yes. im an idiot. and where is the research that supports the proposition that humans are able to perceive 60 fps again ?
cant hear you ?! where ?
nowhere i guess. other than subjective propositions and perceptions. 'i can see this i can feel this bleh blah'.
and you are not able to see a lcd/led set at 60 hz. why.
the fact that your eye can send 60 hz flickering light on/off situation to your brain does not mean that your brain is able to interpret the picture in front of you at the same rate.
and still, where is the research backing that 60 fps proposition ?
yes. that many justification, rationalization as to why and how, and yet there isnt any research to back anything over 30 fps.
oooookay. twitch gamers, are a superbreed indeed. would believe it if i wasnt one of them.
yes, and hence, therefore people have the biology to be able to perceive the difference in between 30, 40, 60 fps.
just because there materialized a percentage of gamers that think they do.