Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Comparison over multiple screens (Score 2) 414

by MassEnergySpaceTime (#49153325) Attached to: Is That Dress White and Gold Or Blue and Black?

Earlier tonight, I compared the same picture on the same site using 3 different computer monitors side by side and 3 different tablet screens.

To me, the white/blue part of the dress is sort of a pale light blue on all 6 screens. But they're different shades of pale blue. On one screen, the blue stand outs a little stronger. On another screen, the blue seems more faded towards white.

For the black/gold/tan part of the dress, on some screens, the tan color seems more faded, making the darker part stronger, and I COULD call it black. I know it's not PURE black, and it's not as black as that cow patch thing in to the left of the dress. But I could call it a shade of black. On other screens, the tan part stands out more, and I would definitely not call that part black. I don't know if I would call it "gold", but I would call it tan/light brownish.

So I think the screen settings is one variable that contributes to what colors the user thinks they see in the dress picture.

For the situations where different people are looking at the same screen or printed photograph, my guess is that the variability comes from the color/brightness/etc sensitivity of their eyes. For example, in my own eyes, one of them sees the wall in a brighter shade of white (and possibly slightly red tinted) than the other eye. Perhaps those who aren't as sensitive to blue might see the blue/white part of the dress as a shade of white, and call it white.

I guess this picture is just one of those freak pictures where the colors are at some borderline that could be interpreted as one shade of color or another.

Comment: Re:125 watt only? (Score 1) 234

by MassEnergySpaceTime (#26389443) Attached to: 45nm Phenom II Matches Core 2 Quad, Trails Core i7

Me too. I'm waiting for the rumored Athlon X4 at 45W TDP. It's supposed to come out in the 2nd qtr of this year. I think it would make a perfect upgrade for my Athlon X2 4850e. As for the price tag, the 65W 9350e has been sitting on Newegg at about the same price as the 125W 9950, so it might take a while before the 45W X4 hit the $100 mark.

Comment: Re:Leap Day... (Score 1) 785

by MassEnergySpaceTime (#26280441) Attached to: Microsoft Zunes Committing Mass Suicide

That sounds very plausible. I've worked on software that mistakenly assumed that each date of the year was exact 24 hours (86,400 seconds) long, which is not true on days where Daylight Saving Time takes effect or ends. On those dates, the day is 23 or 25 hours long, and the software would display stuff off by an hour or in rare cases crash, because the calculations put the stuff on the next or previous date. So I think your guess has a good chance of being right.

Comment: What about usage caps? (Score 3, Interesting) 193

by MassEnergySpaceTime (#24937349) Attached to: High-Speed Broadband Making Headway In the US

I wonder if these reports will start taking into account usage caps employed by some ISPs. After all, what would be the point of upgrading from a 5 Mbps line to a hypothetical 500 Mbps line if your ISP caps your usage to the same number of GB in both cases? It would LOOK like ISPs are offering faster speeds, but you wouldn't be able to use that faster line to do more than you could with the slower line.

"I'm not afraid of dying, I just don't want to be there when it happens." -- Woody Allen