Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
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).
...and it's headed RIGHT FOR US!!!
> There's a lot more to life than gaming.
I've seen it. It's rubbish.
Dave: "Open the pod bay doors, please, Hal."
Hal: "Can you elaborate on that?"
Dave: "Do you read me, Hal?"
Hal: "Oh, I read you?"
Dave: "What's the problem, Hal?"
Hal: "We were discussing you...not me."
Dave: "I don't know what you're talking about, Hal."
Hal: "Does it please you to believe I am talking about ?"
Dave: "I won't argue with you any more, Hal. Open the doors."
Hal: "Do you wish to won't argue with me?"
Dave: "All right, Hal. I'll go in through the emergency airlock."
Hal: "Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all."
It properly showed weightlessness (in the transit ship), artificial gravity as generated by a giant, rotating space station
2001 portrayed zero-gee pretty well, but the prediction they made that people would want to "walk" and "stand" in a zero-gee environment using velcro shoes turned out to be way off. It turns out people actually adapt pretty quickly to moving around in zero-gee, and don't need one side of the room to be the "floor" to keep their bearings. Legs are a liability in zero-gee; they just get in the way.
The scenes in the pod bay are probably the most iffy with respect to the crew's movements. It's supposed to be zero-gee in the pod bay (outside the centrifuge) but you can very plainly see that the AE-35 unit is sitting on the counter when they're testing it, and when Poole and Bowman enter the pod to talk in private, they're very clearly sitting and not floating/anchored. Even stationary people in zero-gee have a kind of "action/reaction" inertia to their movements.
What is a high enough bit rate and sample rate to make something digital effectively analog?
This happens whenever the resolution of the digital signal exceeds the ability of the output device to display or play it back.
For example, if you have an inkjet printer, it sprays dots of ink on the page. Those nozzles have tolerances, and there's a minimum size of the ink splat they can make. If the resolution of your image is greater than the size of that ink splat, it's effectively equivalent to the best output a purely analog representation could deliver.
Same with a television that has a minimum dot pitch. If you downscale an HD image to standard definition, it's effectively equivalent to the best picture the analog set can display. It all depends on the target output device.
Or take your stereo - it has limits in terms of frequency response, total harmonic distortion, and signal-to-noise ratio. If the resolution of your digital source exceeds those tolerances, then you have surpassed what an analog input can reproduce on that system.
Of course, the digital representations have limits too. The ultimately analog circuitry and physical media that store and transmit the digital signal have to be at least accurate enough to represent the digital signal perfectly, so there's really no way for digital to "catch up" to the analog tolerances. They go hand-in-hand.
Mynd you, møøse bites kan be pretty nasti...
If we all posted AC, that might confuchsia.
You can joke about it, but creationists in all seriousness describe evolution as "fairy tales" and "just-so stories."
You bet I could! I'm fully instrument-rated on Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Watch this section, from 1:57 to about 2:08:
You will see the movement of the door edge that reveals more detail as Deckard tracks and zooms. There's no possible way for a flat, static photo taken from a single POV to do this. It has to be 3D, or layered, or the Esper has to be doing some kind of interpolation from the distorted reflection.
Each version of Word was ported to Windows from the Mac until the much-maligned 5.0 version when they tried to reverse it and failed badly.
I think you mean Word 6.0 for Mac, which was ungodly slow on most machines. Word 5.1 was highly regarded as the last "good version" of Word on the Mac for many years.