There used to be a web page called "Your Eyes Suck at Blue". You might find it on the Wayback machine.
You can tell the luminance of each individual channel more precisely than you can perceive differences in mixed color. This is due to the difference between rod and cone cells. Your perception of the color gamut is, sorry, imprecise. I'm sure that you really can't discriminate 256 bits of blue in the presence of other, varying, colors.
Rather than abuse every commenter who has not joined your specialty on Slashdot, please take the source and write about what you find.
Given that CPU and memory get less expensive over time, it is no surprise that algorithms work practically today that would not have when various standards groups started meeting. Ultimately, someone like you can state what the trade-offs are in clear English, and indeed whether they work at all, which is more productive than trading naah-naahs.
There are some unexpected impacts of this law (I haven't read the full law).
A non-commercial area of drone use that is currently not possible, and will not be possible under this law (assuming there are no exemptions) is around search and rescue. Drones fitted with cameras help with visual scanning, with heat sensing equipment they can be sued for far more effective search and rescue.
You do realize that anarchism is defined loosely enough to be quite inclusive of varying degrees of social control? The most anarchic anarchist society would end in mob rule, but few anarchists want that. Because of this you end up with a broad spectrum of people in the definition of 'anarchists'; those that want more municipal level communist elements to those who advocate strongly for primitivism, and also the "American" libertarians/AnCaps.
To my understanding, the policing model most compatible with "anarchism" would involve community selected individuals to be members of the police force. How practical of a model this might be is completely up for debate. The AnCaps would argue whoever has the money to pay for police deserve police...? Something like that.
This made me chuckle. I recently crossed the "this new college grad could be my first child threshold" and the "damn, I can't focus close enough on this ultra-tiny low contrast font on this power supply, I need someone with young eyes to read it". I'm still continually asking the young peers "has anyone seen this technology before", "or does anyone know of any alternative approach". Most of the time, it's cricket sounds in response.
I don't think age is an issue at all, you can have 30 year olds that are stagnant and rely on depth and stability. At any age, breadth, engagement and awareness really helps.
One challenge at any stage is really around outside distractions (married since young, 3 kids) really puts a dent in the volume or breadth or absolute depth that can be acquired, but it's not that hard to get on the right side of the bell curve.
Assuming that these Home Robots are fusion powered, they of course will always be 20 years away...
Well, mostly. I do international business and it's not that difficult without bitcoins. During a bitcoin transfer, there is an that I own bitcoins, and I am exposed to the risk that the bubble bursts at that moment. Not worth worrying about unless the amount is large.
I don't have to apologize for national fiat currency, it's silly too, and I don't keep my assets in cash. My problem with Bitcoin is that it is even less credible than "the faith and credit of the United States government", which has been the justification of the Dollar since it was allowed to float. It seems to be nothing but "wish and it will come true".
No, the small-aircraft owners aren't at risk of messing up their avionics. They are, however, consciously messing up the cellular network for everyone else. You see, you are supposed to be in range of just a few cells when you use your phone, so that we get frequency reuse between cells. If you are at altitude, you are in line-of-sight communications with all of the cells out to the visible horizon on all sides. And the frequencies you are using are probably locked out from reuse over that entire vast area. It would not take very many phones at altitude to disrupt the entire system.
People who received a play-money system from a mysterious unknown person and actually convinced themselves that it has value are now facing a schism over the money market failing to grow without bounds. Unless, that is, the software is modified in a way that might, over time, disincent people from playing the game.
I can't be the only one who is thinking that the only problem is that these folks believe bitcoins have value.
Hell, I thought that the fiat currency of nations was a bad deal. This is an order of magnitude worse.
Google has a strong interest in having a large number of Google derived WiFi out in the market.
Project Fi handsoff between different carriers and WiFi. With WiFi they don't have carrier charges.
I wouldn't be too surprised if Google somehow ties Project Fi into the "OnHub" effort. I'd also expect google making lots of loss-leader agreements with companies to offer lots of Google managed WiFi that will make the backhaul for Project Fi free.
No, the real problem is that you have line-of-sight communications to every cell site until the visible horizon. This tends to use up frequencies over a very large area. In general the antennas have been engineered not to work at high angles, but this can't be complete and the ones on the horizon may see you at the same angle as their regular users.
It's a criminal offense, not a civil one. The officers are directly liable.
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income. -- Errol Flynn Any man who has $10,000 left when he dies is a failure. -- Errol Flynn