The Podmaster took a small case out of his shirt. He opened it, and held something that glittered in the lowering sun. It was a small square, a tile. There were flecks of light that might have been cheap mica, except that the colors swept in coordinated iridescence. "This is one of the cladding tiles from the satellite. There was also a layer of low-power LEDs, but we've stripped those off. Chemically, what is left is diamond fragments bound in epoxy. Watch." He set the square down on the table and shined a hand light on it. And they all watched....And after a moment the little square of iridescence floated upward. At first, the motion looked like a commonplace of the microgravity environment, a loose paperweight wafting on an air current. But the air in the room was still. And as the seconds passed, the tile moved faster, tumbling, falling...straight up. It hit the ceiling with an audible clink-and remained there.
No one said anything for several seconds.
There is an open source version of the guest tools, at least for Linux guests
I'd like to know where to find this?
If I had a newfangled TV with motion interpolation I would probably turn it off too, but not because I don't like smooth motion! The ones I've looked at in stores seem to produce inconsistent results which I find distracting - they are good at interpolating camera pans but not much else.
This is because in general you can't recover information that's been thrown away (or not captured in the first place), and interpolating motion is always going to give slightly dodgy results, especially when your processing is limited to what you can do in real time.
I hate interlace for the same reason. In the days of analog transmission it was a good compromise between resolution, frame rate and bandwidth. In the era of digital however, it can be thought of as the worst lossy codec ever, assuming the source is 50 or 60 FPS. 25/30 FPS material isn't harmed if decoded correctly, but interlace seems to have a unique ability to confuse programmers / hardware designers, resulting in anything from "combing", to horrible jittering caused by displaying the fields in the wrong order.
How about "high frame rate"? (whether that is 48, 50, 60 or higher)
If you want video to look "life-like" you need a better frame rate than 24 FPS. Every gamer knows it (and I wish that every movie-goer knew it too).
Is this new format going to support higher frame rates? Each of color depth, frame rate, resolution and 3D independently multiplies the required bandwidth, so current blu-ray can't even do full-HD @ 60p, never mind 3D at the same time.
It would be nice if there was a format compatible with the Hobbit trilogy as it is meant to be seen (and hopefully more films like it in future).
(and BTW, a motion-interpolating TV is *not* the answer!)
You'd cheat someone if you could with a fraudulent sale
Actually that part was humor. You might want to look that up.
For any given model, these uncertainties can be calculated in a Bayesian sense.
My feeling, as a non-cosmologist, is that we don't even know the correct model. What was the nature of the inflationary epoch, for example?
PayPal security team will determine the bounty amount and all decisions are final.
Would you trust Paypal to reward you fairly?
I've had my computer-illiterate parents on a non-admin account for 20 years now
I'd love to know what operating system you were using on home computers 20 years ago that supported limited user accounts and was usable by "computer-illiterate parents".
"Pascal is Pascal is Pascal is dog meat." -- M. Devine and P. Larson, Computer Science 340