If making this movie is anything like the books, I would half expect the recording studio to explode after the actors leave the building.
It drove me nuts in Margaret Weiss' books. Every friggen place blows up the instant the heroes leave. Even if they win it blows up. "Yahoo, we just defeated the 'more baddest creature yet', for good measure, lets set it on fire, taking out everything in a 30 mile radius as well. Also, I peed in the well. Before we go, lets stab this guy trying to build a road."
Don't use the latrine, it is rigged with C-4. Maybe thats why they needed Jack Bauer?
Data capacity is one thing, unless it lasts longer than magnetic tape without special housing requirements I would imagine this will be filed under 'Interesting but forgotten'.
You are absolutely correct that it won't be able to tell what the 'reverse' side looks like, other than they will know that it has to be within certain size constraints.
So if I'm looking at a football, I won't be able to tell what is behind it from a single picture. You would have a blind spot, that would grow based upon the vectors from the image aperture to the edges of the object.
However, this could be a breakthrough for facial recognition. Given a facial photo, if they are able to extract the dimensions of features, it should provide another level of accuracy in the detection process.
For example: Recognition software might limit a face to 10 possible matches, but if you then run this software, maybe only 1 has a nose that is as long, or eye sockets of a certain depth.
I remember doing something similar to this while an undergrad at Penn State. It was just an undergraduate computer vision course, but one of our exercises involved identifying common reference points from one or more images of the same object. These points can then be used to make an estimation of parallax between the images.
It is really fun to play with since you can use a few still images to create the illusion that a camera is panning around the object. Of course, that example is quite simple. It is very easy for the points to give false positives, and the processing time of our unoptomized algorithms nearly made it unusable. But it did at least give a proof of concept.
However, taking this and expanding it to create 3d models, if they can do so reliably, is quite amazing.
Without addressing the worldwide opinion of the USA, think of the dangers that an unreliable nuclear weapon could be. Relations with the US and 90% of the world are amicable and we consider a great deal of countries our allies.
Imagine for a moment, should some terrible situation arise where a nuclear weapon was deployed for detonation. Regardless of your opinion on nuclear weapons, the prospect of a 'dud' nuclear weapon is perhaps the most frightening nuclear nightmares around. An enemy of the US, targeted by a nuclear weapon, is likely now in posession of a nuclear weapon. One that is quite possibly quickly put back together in a working condition.
It is a terrifying situation, and being able to reduce the nuclear weapon stockpile by designing more reliable nuclear weapons doesn't give me much cause for alarm as it would be developed by a country that already is in posession of the largest nuclear weapon stockpile in the world.
Nukes aren't going away unfortunately, and like all military hardware they must be maintained, or they become far more dangerous.
I think a lot of you guys are rushing off to go save the world when all that was broken was a squeaky hinge.
The first things I saw in this thread were complaints about what was unintuitive about Windows, discussions about executable file placement, and comparisons between the start menu and the OSX dock. Yet when you were learning how to drive your car, the fuel:air ratio and emmissions regulator in your engine were of less importance to you than turning on the engine, manipulating the pedals, and activating turn signals.
Many Windows users, upon installing Linux, are left with an "Ok, now what?" response upon successfully installing an alternate Operating System. They have been handed the keys, but have no where to drive. As a result, they feel confused, and ultimately frustrated at the OS and begin the eventual march back to Windows.
One possible solution is to follow what has been occuring in Firefox. There is certainly more functionality to be added to the vanilla installation, but rather than letting users decide what they are missing, and then track it down, it is presented to them in a manner that shows what they could do, should they install an extention, plugin, etc.
Future developers would be wise to guide their users to what they could do, rather than just let them wander aimlessly.
The problem is you are confusing 'need' with 'want' when you discuss the replacement schedule.
Certainly you may want to upgrade a card every two years, but it is hardly necessary. I would wager that any graphical problems you would encounter within a year of purchasing a 'budget' card are due to poor programming and not an underperforming card.
I recently put the x1300 pro into an older desktop of mine (2ghz p4, 1GB ram. Nothing fancy) yet it has been able to keep pace with Oblivion at a 1024x768 resolution. I don't expect it to nail every setting to maximum but it does what is expected. I also don't plan to upgrade it for a long while.
Now a $200 Xbox... Either you are finding an amazing deal on a 360, or you are overpaying for an old Xbox. If it's the former, please let me meet your dealer.
Slashdot Mirror
If making this movie is anything like the books, I would half expect the recording studio to explode after the actors leave the building.
It drove me nuts in Margaret Weiss' books. Every friggen place blows up the instant the heroes leave. Even if they win it blows up. "Yahoo, we just defeated the 'more baddest creature yet', for good measure, lets set it on fire, taking out everything in a 30 mile radius as well. Also, I peed in the well. Before we go, lets stab this guy trying to build a road."
Don't use the latrine, it is rigged with C-4. Maybe thats why they needed Jack Bauer?
I'm just waiting for the time when little Billy is playing catch a bit too close to the airport.
I use Wikipedia as my pop culture dictionary. If there is a term I'm not aware of, or a movement, I can check it out there.
Topics I would check on Wikipedia:
Who was the Green Lantern Rough statistical facts or histories Basic guidelines for brewing beer. or learning the terminology.
Things I would not rely on Wikipedia for:
Anything that I would want to be correct when presented to the public.
Wikipedia is basically my electronic Guiness book of world records. Nice for trivia, risky for research.
Imagine the datarate if I were to hop into my car, drive across the country, and load this disk into a computer in California.
Even if the trip takes me 48 hours, that is still 303 MB/s!
Data capacity is one thing, unless it lasts longer than magnetic tape without special housing requirements I would imagine this will be filed under 'Interesting but forgotten'.
You are absolutely correct that it won't be able to tell what the 'reverse' side looks like, other than they will know that it has to be within certain size constraints.
So if I'm looking at a football, I won't be able to tell what is behind it from a single picture. You would have a blind spot, that would grow based upon the vectors from the image aperture to the edges of the object.
However, this could be a breakthrough for facial recognition. Given a facial photo, if they are able to extract the dimensions of features, it should provide another level of accuracy in the detection process.
For example: Recognition software might limit a face to 10 possible matches, but if you then run this software, maybe only 1 has a nose that is as long, or eye sockets of a certain depth.
Oh, reading further, it says they are doing so from a single 2d image. In that case, this is even more interesting.
I remember doing something similar to this while an undergrad at Penn State. It was just an undergraduate computer vision course, but one of our exercises involved identifying common reference points from one or more images of the same object. These points can then be used to make an estimation of parallax between the images. It is really fun to play with since you can use a few still images to create the illusion that a camera is panning around the object. Of course, that example is quite simple. It is very easy for the points to give false positives, and the processing time of our unoptomized algorithms nearly made it unusable. But it did at least give a proof of concept. However, taking this and expanding it to create 3d models, if they can do so reliably, is quite amazing.
Without addressing the worldwide opinion of the USA, think of the dangers that an unreliable nuclear weapon could be. Relations with the US and 90% of the world are amicable and we consider a great deal of countries our allies.
Imagine for a moment, should some terrible situation arise where a nuclear weapon was deployed for detonation. Regardless of your opinion on nuclear weapons, the prospect of a 'dud' nuclear weapon is perhaps the most frightening nuclear nightmares around. An enemy of the US, targeted by a nuclear weapon, is likely now in posession of a nuclear weapon. One that is quite possibly quickly put back together in a working condition.
It is a terrifying situation, and being able to reduce the nuclear weapon stockpile by designing more reliable nuclear weapons doesn't give me much cause for alarm as it would be developed by a country that already is in posession of the largest nuclear weapon stockpile in the world.
Nukes aren't going away unfortunately, and like all military hardware they must be maintained, or they become far more dangerous.
I think a lot of you guys are rushing off to go save the world when all that was broken was a squeaky hinge. The first things I saw in this thread were complaints about what was unintuitive about Windows, discussions about executable file placement, and comparisons between the start menu and the OSX dock. Yet when you were learning how to drive your car, the fuel:air ratio and emmissions regulator in your engine were of less importance to you than turning on the engine, manipulating the pedals, and activating turn signals. Many Windows users, upon installing Linux, are left with an "Ok, now what?" response upon successfully installing an alternate Operating System. They have been handed the keys, but have no where to drive. As a result, they feel confused, and ultimately frustrated at the OS and begin the eventual march back to Windows. One possible solution is to follow what has been occuring in Firefox. There is certainly more functionality to be added to the vanilla installation, but rather than letting users decide what they are missing, and then track it down, it is presented to them in a manner that shows what they could do, should they install an extention, plugin, etc. Future developers would be wise to guide their users to what they could do, rather than just let them wander aimlessly.
The problem is you are confusing 'need' with 'want' when you discuss the replacement schedule. Certainly you may want to upgrade a card every two years, but it is hardly necessary. I would wager that any graphical problems you would encounter within a year of purchasing a 'budget' card are due to poor programming and not an underperforming card. I recently put the x1300 pro into an older desktop of mine (2ghz p4, 1GB ram. Nothing fancy) yet it has been able to keep pace with Oblivion at a 1024x768 resolution. I don't expect it to nail every setting to maximum but it does what is expected. I also don't plan to upgrade it for a long while. Now a $200 Xbox... Either you are finding an amazing deal on a 360, or you are overpaying for an old Xbox. If it's the former, please let me meet your dealer.