Slashdot: News for Nerds


Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×


Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (0, Troll)

legallyillegal (889865) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327357)

So how much for one of these suckers? I'll take 2. Oh it's not for sale? Well, fuck you then. I'm going to BreastBuy.

Across Irvine and San Diego? (5, Funny)

admactanium (670209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327359)

they're an hour apart. that's a lot of people fighting over the remote.

Re:Across Irvine and San Diego? (1)

SleptThroughClass (1127287) | more than 6 years ago | (#20330363)

Whether the screen is in Irvine or San Diego, it must be pretty big if they can also see it in the other city. Or is it on a mountain top between the two cities? And as the previous poster insightfully observed, which city is the remote in? And the really important question: Satellite or cable?

Human eyes (2, Insightful)

biocute (936687) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327365)

That's all good, but are our eyes capable of viewing every single px of it?

Re:Human eyes (5, Informative)

tonsofpcs (687961) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327447)

No. "It's exciting," said Joerg Meyer, a professor of computer graphics and visualization who helped develop the screen's software. "This display has higher resolution than the human retina can see." a/la-me-highdef13aug13,1,5603082.story?coll=la-hea dlines-pe-california []

No, but yes (5, Informative)

SpeedyDX (1014595) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327577)

The resolution of the human eye is relatively minute (it's usually not measured in MP, but I think the best equivelence was quoted around 15 MP at any given time). The easiest way to explain it, I think, is that your eyes are never in the same position for more than a split second. It's constantly moving and looking at any given object from a multitude of different angles. So no, it isn't able to see 220MP, but at the same time, it is (theoretically) able to see a better image with a higher pixel count, because of the fact that your eye is never stationary.

But that doesn't take into account your brain. Your eye transfers raw data to your brain similar to a bitmap/RAW file. The way your brain processes this information, though, is more like a vector image. Our brains "see" lines and shapes much more than it sees individual points of colours. Which makes the answer even more complicated. We don't really see all the pixels, but we're able to piece together most of the pixels while our eyes move about, ALTHOUGH our brain "transforms" that information so it makes more sense to us.

A really neat example that illustrates how the brain processes raw data: close your eyes, and get a friend (or yourself, if you can trust yourself not to cheat) to hold up something that is near the outer edge of your peripheral vision. Open your eyes, but don't move them - keep looking straight ahead so that the object is still near the edge of your peripheral vision. You can SEE the object, and can possibly even tell what it is. But what colour is the object? Even though your eyes are able to see colour even in your peripheral vision, the brain doesn't think that the information of colour is as important as the outline/shape of the object. It is only when something is near the centre of your vision (in other words, where your attention usually is) that you can tell what colour it is.

Re:No, but yes (5, Informative)

wumpus188 (657540) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327855)

No. You cannot see the color of the peripheral object because the cone cells, which are responsible for the color vision, become sparse towards the edge of the retina.

Re:No, but yes (1)

foresthillboy (1145675) | more than 6 years ago | (#20329513)

Until you reach the cone rim at the edge of the retina.

Re:No, but yes (1)

Basehart (633304) | more than 6 years ago | (#20330429)

No. Oh wait, Yes.

Re:No, but yes (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20328145)

I got the impression from a new scientist article that the transfer to the brain is not ina "raw" format, but in the format that you describe the brain using- the processing is local (in the optical nerve) to save bandwidth.
It described the mechanism being a second set of nerves behind the rods and cones that fired in response to certain relative changes between nearby rods and cones.

Re:No, but yes (3, Informative)

E++99 (880734) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328333)

The resolution of the human eye is relatively minute (it's usually not measured in MP, but I think the best equivelence was quoted around 15 MP at any given time).

It's not usually measured in pixel count because pixel count is an entirely irrelevant concept to eye resolution. The angular resolution of the eye is extremely high at the center of the image, and falls off extremely rapidly in a very steep bell curve. So unlike a monitor, the number of pixels across the eye's vision does not correlate at all to the maximum angular resolution of the eye.

Re:Human eyes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20328251)

We are possibly getting closer to finding out how Gulliver looked to the Lilliputians.

My first thought,,, (-1, Redundant)

ameyer17 (935373) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327367)

Damn, that's a lot of pixels.

Re:My first thought,,, (5, Funny)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327451)

mine was... What's the return policy on dead pixels?

Re:My first thought... (1)

the_13th_saint (1076063) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327483)

My first thought was 'but does it play Doom?'

Re:My first thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20327797)

I was imagining a beowulf display of those.

Re:My first thought... (1)

mikael (484) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328813)

It's a Beowolf cluster of NVidia Quadro Fx5600 graphics cards. There are 55 XPS monitors driven by 18 Dell XPS systems combined with grid computing middleware (ROCKS), and graphics API (Cluster GL/CGLX).


wamerocity (1106155) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327529)


Re:My first thought,,, (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 6 years ago | (#20329419)

Yeah more then the Viva Vision canopy [] part of the Fremont Street Experience in Vegas which is only 12.5 million pixels down about 1,400 feet. But it certainly is impressive with the right show (or equally lousy with the wrong one).

Remove the seams (4, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327369)

Then we'll talk.

Re:Remove the seams (4, Funny)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327559)

I think that since you're supposed to look at it from 7km away you can't see the seams.

The main problem is that they need 408 repeaters for the USB mouse and keyboard.

Re:Remove the seams (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327679)

If you're supposed to look at it 7km away then all you need is 1 pixel per screen.

Re:Remove the seams (1)

proverbialcow (177020) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327737)

True, but the sheer number of pixels allows for a much larger palette of colors and gradients, in only a 55-pixel grid. Imagine your favorite NES sprites squashed and rendered in more colors than your eye can see...

Re:Remove the seams (2, Funny)

Woy (606550) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328165)

And a high chair.

Re:Remove the seams (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327843)

The only thing amazing about this is that they managed to get budget to buy 55 high-resolution LCD displays just so they could stack them together.

Re:Remove the seams (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328741)

Yep... what is the point? Without all the seams it would be kinda cool (for a couple of minutes), but as it is, it seems to be a totally useless novelty.

Re:Remove the seams (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20328973)

You obviously don't know shit about graphics if you think you just stack them together and they magically output high resolution images. How large of an image do you think the graphics card in your computer can output? So if you think it's easy, then tell me, how would you solve i/o and scaling? Hint: it's not a lego set

Re:Remove the seams (2, Informative)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 6 years ago | (#20329211)

Anything like this is easy if the Uni gives you its yearly showoff budget.

Re:Remove the seams (1)

Incadenza (560402) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328027)

You are right, and it is possible. Last year at the IBC I saw two coupled very large HDTV screens, fed by two separate HDTV streams originating from two coupled cameras, displaying one soccer match. That was nice: supersharp and a display ratio of 32:9.

Re:Remove the seams (1)

ragnarok (6947) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328545)

Large seamless displays are not that exotic, they're used all the time for industrial control and monitoring applications among other things.
These guys make pretty nice displays: []

Re:Remove the seams (1)

hokiehead (1088307) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328385)

VisBlock( has displays without bezels (seams). They have a "wall" setup at Virginia Tech ( .

It's called UCSD or (5, Informative)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327373)

University of California at San Diego.

Can't samezenpus get the least bit of editorial right? Oh, yeah, he can't. He's samzenpus, and he's not an editor, he's an idiotor.

I mean wtf is U of CA? I've never seen it written like that, ever.

And to get this rant back on topic:

Is the screen effervescent?

Re:It's called UCSD or (1)

franc0ph0bic (815786) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327403)

yea seriously, its UCSD and thats how its always been :/

Re:It's called UCSD or (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20327431)

U of CA is a commonly used abbreviation. Just check their site [] .

Re:It's called UCSD or (1)

Alaria Phrozen (975601) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327509)

Fuck you. If I had mod points I'd trace your IP and mod you to hell. GIVE A FUCKING NSFW WARNING.

Re:It's called UCSD or (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20328007)

clicking on tinyurl link from an AC probably wasn't the wisest choice you could have made.

BTW I'm guessing from another AC response that this is goatse, has anyone on the internet not been introduced to that fellow's gaping anus? If it was your first time then WELCOME~!

Re:It's called UCSD or (2)

Edie O'Teditor (805662) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328233)

Imagine that on a giant screen!

P.S. clicking a tinyurl link from an AC ... you must be new here.

WARNING parent is goatse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20327665)

WARNING parent is goatse

Re:It's called UCSD or (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20327477)

When I saw U of CA I thought Berkeley... 'Cal.' It really doesn't make much difference when there are grammatical errors, but this one is pretty blatant.

Come one editors, you can't expect someone to take the time to post interesting comments if the summaries don't pull them in.


Re:It's called UCSD or (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20327591)

wrong, there is no "at". It's just University of California, San Diego.

Re:It's called UCSD or (1)

g_vernon (1086529) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327723)

U.C. San Diego is something I've heard/read as well, but U of CA? I don't think anyone uses that.

With the University of California system there is no at in the title. University letterhead generally includes the names of all campuses. When a specific campus is sending mail, the entire title of that campus will be specified at top. So for UCSD, it would say "University of California, San Diego". Under the seal is the address, which would be: "San Diego, California 9????-????" (I don't know the zip for UCSD).

Re:It's called UCSD or (2, Informative)

Capt'n Hector (650760) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327849)

THANK you. I made a similar comment [] a while back, and got hit with a -1, offtopic. I sincerely hope you fare better. U of CA should be written as UC, end of story. It's not offtopic this time though, look at the freaking page title!

Shouldn't they just call it (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327927)

San Diego University?

Re:Shouldn't they just call it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20328853)

No, as there's a University of San Diego, which is completely separate from UCSD. There's also San Diego State, which is part of the CSU system.

UC schools are either named by city, in context of the UC system (someone who goes to a UC school can talk about Davis or Irvine, and be well understood what school is being talked about), their respective nicknames (like Cal), or are always prefixed with UC. UC schools are NEVER postfixed with the word university.

Re:It's called UCSD or (4, Insightful)

mchanaud (1087413) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328069)

as a non american, U of CA is much more comprehensible than UCSD. But, wait, who really matters about non american readers?

Re:It's called UCSD or (1)

sound+vision (884283) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328123)

I'm an American, and I can't immediately tell what the fuck either of them mean. What's wrong with calling it by its name, "University of California"? Or must we use illegible, and frankly retarded, abbreviations for a goddamned proper noun?

Re:It's called UCSD or (2, Funny)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328425)

I would have thought that non-Americans would have interpreted U of CA as University of Canada...

Re:It's called UCSD or (4, Funny)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 6 years ago | (#20329279)

We're also aware that /. is run by Americans, and that Americans aren't aware that there are any Universities in Canada.

Mods: That's a joke. That's "haha" as distinctly opposed to "die troll scumbag take this -1 and then we'll see who has the last laugh!".

Re:It's called UCSD or (1)

Edie O'Teditor (805662) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328171)

He's samzenpus, and he's not an editor, he's an idiotor.
Oi! Leave me out of it you git.

$420 Million Webpage (4, Funny)

Joebert (946227) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327401)

Just in time for my $420 million webpage.

Eye Strain (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327419)

Eye strain might be something now... :S

I'm sure for what they paid . . (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327421)

. . . they could have found a better solution that didn't have the bevels.

Geeks and how they get a tan (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20327429)

It's not a display, it's a tanning salon for geeks.

The only thing is, they'll risk overexposing themselves to pr0n and who knows what kind of a mark that'll leave on virgin skin.

Re:Geeks and how they get a tan (1)

ZOMFF (1011277) | more than 6 years ago | (#20330103)

Frankly I would be horrified at the sight of pr0n that size. Somethings just don't need that amount of detail (nor size)

Go Tritons (1)

doyoulikeworms (1094003) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327437)

Now we can watch our undefeated football team in all its glory.

Re:Go Tritons (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328051)

Now they can play Pong from outer space!

Re:Go Tritons (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328063)

Ooops, replied to the wrong thread...

Re:Go Tritons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20328439)

UCSD once had a football team, it was disbanded after losing to CalTech in 1968.

I have an idea (2, Funny)

nihongomanabu (1123631) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327441)

pac-man anyone?

WANT! Really, really want. (1)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327445)

But seeing as I lack the budget or space for such a display or it's roomful of wiring and rendering nodes, I'm stuck with my trusty old GDM-W900 crt. Hehe.

Re:WANT! Really, really want. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20327499)

Its tiled displays. This is really more about something along the lines of technology(think video card) capable of outputting ridiculous resolutions.

Re:WANT! Really, really want. (1)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327531)

I know. Bigass tiled displays like this have been done a few times before. Last one I recall had one "real" computer which had an OpenGL that sent rendering information over a GigE network to SGI Onyx boxes that drove two or four displays each. I'll never forget the article's picture of the highest resolution FPS fragging ever...

Re:WANT! Really, really want. (2, Insightful)

AnimeDTA (963237) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327551)

Its 50x 30" displays, its not about the display so much as the cluster of 18 computers/video cards working together. That sets each individual computer at rendering just under 3 displays each. An easy feat in and of itself. Now getting it to work syncronously with 17 other computers... thats neat.

Re:WANT! Really, really want. (1)

tucuxi (1146347) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327661)

Still, the seams are no fun. With that resolution, if it were feasible to use tiled back-projection, the display would have a much higher resolution than most IMAX theaters - which use about 70 M pixels per frame, according to Wikipedia. Representing maps or textual information on a tiled display makes it much, much harder to read.

I also wonder if there are real applications that need that huge amount of detail *everywhere*. I would think that having a few high-resolution areas for detail work (basically where people can still walk up and read) and lower-resolution areas for overview (up where only really tall or short people can actually read anything) could be a nice compromise to save costs.

Even if the feat is the possibility of pushing all those pixels to the screens rather than the screen-engineering itself, I still have to wonder what real-world applications they forsee.

Re:WANT! Really, really want. (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327995)

..neat, but it's been done before. This might be better than done previously, but I don't really see how I can know for sure.

I wonder how many pixels the new LED display is at "The Place" in Beijing. The thing is massive (2,296' by 88') - and it's supposed to be second to one in Las Vegas somewhere (I read that's five XGA-equivalent displays working as one single display - what does that make it? Probably not a lot).

What's the point? (1, Informative)

akkarin (1117245) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327601)

I mean, it's not a single display: it's a hundred LCDs stitched together.
When they create a 220 million LCD screen, then great.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328623)

That's quite a bit to spend on one pixel...

U of CA? Really? (1)

JamesRose (1062530) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327625)

More like U to the C to the A fo' shizzle!

Re:U of CA? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20327819)

Is it just me or do rappers sound like mathematicians when they say C to the A? I keep thinking of algebra, variables to the powers of other variables. So that U of C to the A would be like some sort of deriviative, U is C^A.

IR4 (3, Interesting)

dwater (72834) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327691)

Silicon Graphics' Onyx IR4 could drive this many pixels, couldn't it?

IIRC, it was 16 pipes, 8 displays per pipe, 1920x1200 per display - I make that almost 300M (pixels, not dollars - it'd be *many* more dollars) - probably not remembering correctly, but still. ... and OpenGL Performer could make it all work nicely for visualisation too. I wonder what's happened to OpenGL Performer.

Re:IR4 (1)

Verte (1053342) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327897)

In 48 bit colour :) It's difficult finding pre-origin-3000 information on high-end sgi systems.

IR4 is a funny thing. IIRC, both the Onyx 2 and Onyx 3000 supported it, and with the same performance, however, the Onyx 3000 took up twice the floor space :) You would think, with modern technology, we'd almost have an entire IR4 pipe on a couple of cards, and SGI back in the graphics market.

By the way, if you think the pixel count of Onyx IR4 was impressive, do you recall how many polygons it could render per second?

Re:IR4 (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327953) don't remember)

Futuretech was one of my favourite SGI sites, and it has this on Onyx2 RealityMonster

Also found this [] which says each pipe is 8.3M pixels. So 16 x 8.3M = only 132.8 M pixels. I believe the limit is per pipe, since the DG basically split up the output of the RMs for each display.

However, I'll bet there were some machines with more than 16 pipes out there....probably secret or something, but I bet they're there somewhere.

They don't seem to quote polygons per second; I'd guess because it's somewhat meaningless, though it could also be because they were so much slower than the competition (ie PC cards) on that metric - that is if you don't bother to figure out what 'a polygon' actually means.

Re:IR4 (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327961)

missed the link to futuretech [] .

Re:IR4 (1)

Verte (1053342) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328025)

Those are some serious specs! Still, the system in TFA has a peak theoretical floating point performance higher than that of the largest SGI system ever built, in graphics hardware alone.

Re:IR4 (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 6 years ago | (#20329325)

To be fair, the biggest SGI system ever built :

1) may not have yet been built yet (ie SGI is still around and ever isn't over yet), and
2) the biggest one built to date probably also had higher theoretical floating point performance in *it's* graphics hardware too.

Not a theater system! (4, Insightful)

ejito (700826) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327733)

People who are dismissing as just a wall of monitors are mistaken. It takes dozens of computers to run that resolution, which is no trivial task. This is not a theater system, so complaining about seams misses the point entirely. If they were just looking for a semi-large seamless screen, any shmuck could just use a single projector.

This system allows groups of researchers to review large amounts of visual data in both macro and micro scale. If you want to see the micro scale, you simply walk up to an individual monitor. Review can be done simultaneously among many people.

For a seamless, 100 million pixel projection screen (this is also not trivial, as removing seams requires real time brightness and color correction along edges) can be viewed here [] . In comparison, an IMAX [] theater uses a very large single projector unit weighing nearly 2 tons.

The sister screen at UCI can be viewed at here [] .

Re:Not a theater system! (2, Interesting)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 6 years ago | (#20329275)

This is not a theater system, so complaining about seams misses the point entirely.

I can't think of a large-format display usage that WOULDN'T benefit from seamlessness. I don't know why you think it's only relevant to movie theaters.

Re:Not a theater system! (1)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 6 years ago | (#20329585)

This system allows groups of researchers to review large amounts of visual data in both macro and micro scale. If you want to see the micro scale, you simply walk up to an individual monitor.

Whereas I can sit on my arse all day and just use a display program with zoom function... so I guess this is a device to get lazy researchers doing some exercise? ;-)

Soon a 7 billion pixel display? 1 pixel/person? (2, Interesting)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327781)

It is conceivable that soon technology/engineering will make it possible to have a multi billion pixel display.

An interesting application might be to assign a pixel to each person living. Then as they pass through the phases of life, their brightness could wax and wane. Also perhaps color could be used to identify race or geography.

Might be an interesting display in a world's fair/expo kind of context. Being able to walk right up to it and realizing that you are just one of the billions of little dots could be pretty awe inspiring.

Perhaps it would give new meaning to the comment "he seems kinda bright". (ba du bum ;)

Re:Soon a 7 billion pixel display? 1 pixel/person? (1)

sxltrex (198448) | more than 6 years ago | (#20330207)

And when their pixel turns red they're forced to go to Carousel.

porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20327827)

I want to watch porn on this screen~

Re:porn (1)

ThirdPrize (938147) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328103)

Or how about Half Life 2 where the combine and other characters are actually the same size as you? That would be immersive.

How to keep your funding (2, Funny)

GayBliss (544986) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327829)

This is what they say in public:
"...allows us to experiment on the two campuses with distributed teams that can collaborate and share insights derived from a better understanding of complex results."

But it private:
"this is fucking awesome!"

Recommended Viewing Distance? (1)

AskChopper (1077519) | more than 6 years ago | (#20327901)

My sofa is six feet from the wall.. Reckon that's too close?

Is that a lot? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20327925)

Did anyone else have to square root this to see if it was impressive or not?

imagine the pr0n on that screen (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328309)

Or, you could have a killer video update from the beach, the whole wall of your apartment could look like you were standing at the edge of the water. DO want!

let the lights come up/the big flash occur (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20328487)

the sooner the better.

just more of the same whoreabull life0cidal disregard for us that we're being encouraged to ignore/become accustomed to? [] gy.htm []

as far as we're concerned, the nazis make inferior 'clouds'.

what a surprise/secret?

previous post:
corepirate nazis now providing 'cloud' cover
(Score:-1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21, @09:48AM (#20303795) [] [] [] [] [] [] ml []

we're watching right now (& again today, 8/22) as they spray phoney clouds over our city. yikes almighty. took some pictures of the ever spreading 'trail', & the 'lovely' 'rainbow' around the sun (again).

it must not be that good for US or the whoreabull corepirate nazi execrable would be bragging about it.

see you there?

whoreabull corepirate nazi felons planning trips
(Score:-1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, @12:13PM (#20072457)
in orbit perhaps? we wouldn't want to be within 500 miles of the naykid furor(s) at this power point.

better days ahead?

as in payper liesense hypenosys stock markup FraUD felons are on their way out? what a revolutionary concept.

from previous post: many demand corepirate nazi execrable stop abusing US

we the peepoles?

how is it allowed? just like corn passing through a bird's butt eye gas.

all they (the felonious nazi execrable) want is... everything. at what cost to US?

for many of US, the only way out is up.

don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.

'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.

some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.

concern about the course of events that will occur should the corepirate nazi life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

Return Policy? (0, Offtopic)

ThisIsAnonymous (1146121) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328637)

How many dead pixels before I can return this thing? I hope it's more than 8...

Don't fancy flat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20328909)

I don't fancy the flat version... ... any chance of a 170 degree semi-circular arrangement and a BlueGene/L running the rendering for an utterly awesome first person shooter???

Not completely unique! (1)

Scubaraf (1146565) | more than 6 years ago | (#20328925)

I work at the Broad Institute on the MIT campus. In the lobby of our building there is a transected cyclinder (think half a burrito cut at a 45 degree angle) made up of seventy-six ~40" LCD screens. The video on them is contiguous, with background elements floating from one screen to another and animations running accross several adjacent screens at once. Conservatively assuming a resolution of 1366 x 768 for each screen, this is at least an 80 megapixel display. Anyone have more details?

Why? (1)

Antonov (29524) | more than 6 years ago | (#20329021)

Larger minesweeper tiles!

"borrowed" from todays cartoon: []

can't resist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20329353)

But will Vista play HD content on it?

Reality Centre (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 6 years ago | (#20329359)

Basically this is just an up-to-date Reality Centre. Nothing particularly revolutionary about it these days.

What the hell is the problem with online news? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#20329417)

"Engineers at the University of California, San Diego have built a 220 million pixel display across 55 high-resolution tiled screens."

And we get to see a 300x150 picture of it.

It's nice to see they're keeping their bandwidth for the ads instead of the actual content...

3 gigapixel telescope camera (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 6 years ago | (#20329469)

I believe the top end telescope is now around 3 gigapixels, by suturing a few hundred large CCD chips. The image is not meant for direct human consumption, but pre-analyzed by computer.

Steve Jobs is drooling already (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#20329751)

His Grandness Stevus Jobus has ordered that this new 220MP display to be the default monitor for the next release of iMac.

Saw something like this at UCI. (1)

goldsticknt (1146611) | more than 6 years ago | (#20329991)

They have a "hyperwall" that sounds a bit like this in the Calit2 building here at UCI. 50 Apple Monitors stacked 5 high, 10 wide. The guy who showed me it said they use it for some sort of medical imaging or something. Put a couple thousand cat scans of peoples heads up on the display. Also displayed various protein models and the like. I asked someone else here how much it cost. Apparently you can get bulk discounts when you do this kindof stuff. My favorite part was what was behind the display. Each pair of monitors was hooked up to its own mac. There was a whole stack of these computers sitting behind the display. Whenever something is displayed, all the fans in all the computers rev up, so it sounds a bit like an AC.

BF2!!! (1)

erat123 (1114479) | more than 6 years ago | (#20330107)

Can we hack it to play Battle Field 2 on the screen? I want to be in the game!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account