Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:What's the point? (Score 3, Interesting) 78

Less exciting; but sufficiently dense pixels might also make subpixel defects less obnoxious, even if the actual resolution requirements are low enough that multiple physical pixels are driven as a single logical pixel to reduce computational costs or display link bandwidth. And more acceptable defects means fewer scrapped panels.
Displays

Nano-Pixels Hold Potential For Screens Far Denser Than Today's Best 78

Posted by timothy
from the enhance-enhance-enhance dept.
Zothecula (1870348) writes "The Retina displays featured on Apple's iPhone 4 and 5 models pack a pixel density of 326 ppi, with individual pixels measuring 78 micrometers. That might seem plenty good enough given the average human eye is unable to differentiate between the individual pixels, but scientists in the UK have now developed technology that could lead to extremely high-resolution displays that put such pixel densities to shame."

Comment: Re:So instead of "free" why don't they say "covere (Score 2) 175

you'd be guilty of various crimes, like tax evasion due to accounting fraud, and also price discrimination against some of your customers. Besides, you'd also be guilty of dumping, which is a variant of antitrust violation.

How so?

I mean building costs into pricing models has been around for quite a long time. Shipping is just one of those costs and costs come off the ledger for profit statements and tax purposes.

The US Postal Service has a flat rate box where if it fits, it ships anywhere for something like $15. If Amazon negotiates that to $10 and their average order qualifying for free shipping has 4 items in it, it is only $2.50 added onto the costs. So they take the retail price, discount it by 25% then add $3 to it and cover the costs of shipping without dipping too much into profits.

Businesses to this with taxes too. You place a fee or raise their rates and they just adjust their prices accordingly. It's easiest to do when the tax increase effects the entire industry too. Of course there has been some industries who got pissed and attached it as a separate fee specifically notating the law that caused the increase on the bill. Congress was really pissed when the telco industry started doing that.

Comment: Re:What is the motivation? (Score 1) 267

by sumdumass (#47441405) Attached to: A Skeptical View of Israel's Iron Dome Rocket Defense System

I suspected this hit piece was just an moral encouragement for hamas to keep up the fight.

I don't know if they are anti Israel or pro hamas or completely clueless but a lot of speculation could have been avoided if they waited until after this was resolved. As it stands now, Israel's citizens will likely be convinced it is useless and demand the military invade every time there is a rocket attack. There could be a lot more violent killing and subjugation than currently in place.

Comment: Re:We live in the future (Score 4, Informative) 37

Too bad the post office isn't as efficient as the weather service.

Actually, the post office is remarkably efficient, given the volumes of mail they carry. USPS alone, in one day carries more than FedEx annually, and in 3, more than UPS. (Take that, late Christmas 2013 presents).

They have to be efficient otherwise the whole system breaks down in short order. And by law of big numbers, of course, they'll run into problems. It ain't nice when it happens via the mail, but FedEx and UPS can be completely hopeless when it's their package. (You'd think with all that tracking information they could easily find a missing or lost package, but no. If a package gets scanned out but not scanned in, you're SOL).

Comment: Re:Not a rule - Not just the FAA (Score 2) 173

The problem with the approach the FAA has been taking on this issue is that the deciding factor is whether money changes hands. If an activity is safe for a hobbyist to perform, why is it suddenly dangerous and in need of regulation when a professional does it? If anything, commercially operated remote controlled planes/helicopters would be safer in a given situation, as the parent company is going to have real liability insurance, and the insurer is going to have all sorts of maintenance and training requirements.

Because once money changes hands, well, they want to make sure you have SUFFICIENT liability insurance, and that your equipment is well maintained.

A realtor probably only has their malpractice insurance - if they crash into a neighbours house, that insurance may not be sufficient, or even covered. The realtor would just close their business, while the neighbour is stuck suing a bankrupt company (they're all "independent franchises").

So the FAA would like to make sure you accidentally kill someone, they can be adequately taken care of.

The other reason is well, drones are getting REALLY popular. The problem with this is how well qualified are these people flying them? A hobbyist probably knows the rules of t heir hobby and is conscious enough to fly it properly.

Some guy with a rich parent buying their kid a drone flying it into traffic and causing accidents? Imagine all those people who can't figure out where the "any" key is flying those things everywhere.

The other issue is well, what jurisdiction is it when clashes happen? If you're flying a drone taking photos of a house, what's to differentiate it from taking photos of hunters, taking photos of nude people on a beach, taking photos of you in your backyard?

Plus, it's easier to go after people with money and regulate that first. Because they're using it to make money, it's easier to go after them for commercial activity than someone who wants to take a neat photo of their kid in their backyard.

It's really only a matter of time before some idiot with a drone goes and misuses it. The FAA is really trying to warn them to not even try so the activity can progress by those who know what they're doing. Want some crazy legislation? Watch it when a bunch of lawmakers get their panties in a knot. It's what led to the awful legislation that banned scanners from receiving cell-band (800 MHz) signals.

They're getting cheaper, better, and are available to anyone with a credit card. And everyone knows there are lot of rich idiots out there who will ruin it for everyone. Especially since the FAA is still trying to come up with reasonable rules that take into account everyone - pilots, law enforcement, commercial interests, the public, etc. Take an idiot with a drone who crashes it into a busy intersection, and you'll have lawmakers screaming "something must be done" and enacting all sorts of overbroad legislation ahead of the FAA.

Comment: Re:France built something like this back in the 19 (Score 1) 267

by sumdumass (#47441293) Attached to: A Skeptical View of Israel's Iron Dome Rocket Defense System

Nobody was an idiot back then, everyone knew Hitler was a problem.

I guess you never heard of Neville Chamberlain.

Hitler could have been stopped before a world war happened if the Treaty of Versailles had only been enforced. It would have been minor to stop Germany when they reoccupied the Rhineland. France alone could have done that.

There was a lot of stupidity in hindsight.

Comment: Re:Subject bait (Score 1) 267

by sumdumass (#47441253) Attached to: A Skeptical View of Israel's Iron Dome Rocket Defense System

Where these "Jews" more likely to be the ancestors of the Palestinians or Israelis...

Neither. They are largely from the same gene pool if you consider most of the y chromosome in the populations being of the same pool.

Of course the ottoman empire actually sold land to European Jews (likely from different genetics) off and on since the 1600s.

Did Plaestine cease to be "Jewish" because of migration or because the Arabs "upgraded" to V2 or V3 of "The religion of Abraham"?

Largely because of V3 and the Muslim conquests in the 7th century. The Muslim conquests also brought about quite a bit of conversions (I don't know if it was forced or not). This also brought about the Arabization of the area.

It should be noted that Palestine has never been a country or state. The area got the name due to Hellenization. It was a Hellenized location so the Greeks or other Hellenized people could reference it. The lands have always been occupied by some power other than the Palestinian people since they got the name. DNA studies seem to link the Palestinians close to the Jews and early Christians (who were converted Jews) quite closely.

Comment: Re:Creepy (Score 1) 169

by sumdumass (#47440873) Attached to: DARPA Successfully Demonstrates Self-Guiding Bullets

It's sort of pointless now that rpstrong showed me the error of my thinking.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

You see, all you need to do is set the riffle to it's highest point in the trajectory arc and the laser to the center of the scope. At any distance now, the riffle is no longer being aimed except in a general direction. So once the laser kicks in, the bullet will guide itself to the target. All you have to do is get close and aim the laser right when the trigger is pulled.

I was originally thinking the gun had to be aimed before firing so the laser would have to be in the field of view at the same time. According to this site a .50 cal sighted in a 1000 yards or 915 meters will be roughly 45 inches high at 200 yards and 300 inches low at 1500 yards or 1371 meters. Now most scopes and military sights will have adjustments that can be tuned for the differences in distance. But as you can see, with almost a difference of 350 inches (29 feet or 8.8 meters) between 200 yards and 1500 yards, a laser centered at 1000 yards will have to be adjusted the same or be out of the field of view. So if you had to aim the riffle before shooting, you would also have to adjust both the laser and scope. But because the bullet is guided, you just need to make sure the bullet is high enough in the trajectory arc in order to follow the laser to the target. The laser can be centered at this sighting reference and remain on target.

So basically, I was over thinking it without paying attention to the correct details.

Comment: Re:Yet another proof creation doesn't work! (Score 1) 156

by sumdumass (#47440795) Attached to: Hints of Life's Start Found In a Giant Virus

My premise is nothing of the sort. It has nothing to do with individual reality but how reality is presented and accepted. No one said anything about anything being true or not, that is beyond anything I was conveying. The point is that it all boils down to someone claiming to have authority saying something and people either accepting it as true or not. This is because just like those people (who happen to be the vast majority) who cannot do the science for whatever reason, most will never talk to god or be presented with any significant evidence of a God.

Now, you coming out and saying trust me, I can do all this to prove it is still someone saying trust me, trust this that proves it. You say but all these other people say it to, but look at all the churches saying the same things too. People listening will still have no option but to trust you or not just like with religion or science fiction.

Note, I put science fiction out there not because science is fiction but because I wanted to show that people will believe science fiction just the same as real science and/or religion.

This entire religion verses science is a bunch of bullshit anyways. They are tools and used for different things. Less than 99 percent of either will ever conflict with each other and of what will, it has so little of an impact on most people it is insignificant.

The confusion of a staff member is measured by the length of his memos. -- New York Times, Jan. 20, 1981

Working...