Moon landing was real and WE CAN PROVE IT, says Nvidia
-
It's only a product promo, but it's a smart one: Nvidia reckons the judicious application of its graphics technology can debunk one of the world's favourite “moon landing was a hoax conspiracies”.
When asked to remove the demo, a spokesman for the company said "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
It proves nothing of the sort. It merely means that by changing the data they can simulate the appropriate conditions under which the picture may have been taken. It does not PROVE that the picture was taken there. I do wish non-scientists would not use words they do not understand.
--------------------------------- Obscurum per obscurius. Ad astra per alas porci. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
-
It proves nothing of the sort. It merely means that by changing the data they can simulate the appropriate conditions under which the picture may have been taken. It does not PROVE that the picture was taken there. I do wish non-scientists would not use words they do not understand.
--------------------------------- Obscurum per obscurius. Ad astra per alas porci. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
I doubt that anything even the best scientists in the world could come up with would be accepted as a proof by non-believers. And believers already believe. So there is no point in trying to prove it took place, or did not.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Entropy isn't what it used to.
-
It's only a product promo, but it's a smart one: Nvidia reckons the judicious application of its graphics technology can debunk one of the world's favourite “moon landing was a hoax conspiracies”.
When asked to remove the demo, a spokesman for the company said "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
-
-
It proves nothing of the sort. It merely means that by changing the data they can simulate the appropriate conditions under which the picture may have been taken. It does not PROVE that the picture was taken there. I do wish non-scientists would not use words they do not understand.
--------------------------------- Obscurum per obscurius. Ad astra per alas porci. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
-
It proves nothing of the sort. It merely means that by changing the data they can simulate the appropriate conditions under which the picture may have been taken. It does not PROVE that the picture was taken there. I do wish non-scientists would not use words they do not understand.
--------------------------------- Obscurum per obscurius. Ad astra per alas porci. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
wow I didn't know NASA was that clever, fancy knowing in the early 70s that the stars wouldn't be visible from the surface yet still making sure that they were their and could be enhanced by technology 50 years later kudos to them
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
I do wish non-scientists would not use words they do not understand.
Quark.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Dalek Dave wrote:
I do wish non-scientists would not use words they do not understand.
Quark.
Come on, pretty much everyone nowadays recognises this a weird vegetarian cheese thing.
Alberto Brandolini:
The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
-
Yes, a fake Mars landing is much more better, these days. And, I'd also favor a fake landing on Saturn's rings. That would be exciting at least. Give the audience what they want. I don't want to be mooned any more. :D
-
Yes, a fake Mars landing is much more better, these days. And, I'd also favor a fake landing on Saturn's rings. That would be exciting at least. Give the audience what they want. I don't want to be mooned any more. :D
-
I do hope so
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Honest, LOL going on!!!
RUs123 wrote:
So then Uranus is out of the picture as well ?
But also, I'm scared about why you would even ask!!!!?! Oops, I turned the corner on that one.
-
Honest, LOL going on!!!
RUs123 wrote:
So then Uranus is out of the picture as well ?
But also, I'm scared about why you would even ask!!!!?! Oops, I turned the corner on that one.
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Dalek Dave wrote:
I do wish non-scientists would not use words they do not understand.
Quark.
Come on, pretty much everyone nowadays recognises this a weird vegetarian cheese thing.
Alberto Brandolini:
The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
Cheese? I thought he was a bar-tender[^]. ;P
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
In normal circumstances I wouldn't ask but with the potential for a bad joke, anything goes. :-D :-D
committed to code 2. [x] committed to online forums related to code 3. [x] committed to bad jokes. -
It's only a product promo, but it's a smart one: Nvidia reckons the judicious application of its graphics technology can debunk one of the world's favourite “moon landing was a hoax conspiracies”.
When asked to remove the demo, a spokesman for the company said "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
Time to re-post the same video, then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw[^] :-D
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
committed to code 2. [x] committed to online forums related to code 3. [x] committed to bad jokes.
-
Cheese? I thought he was a bar-tender[^]. ;P
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
No. Captain of a garbage scow.
-
It proves nothing of the sort. It merely means that by changing the data they can simulate the appropriate conditions under which the picture may have been taken. It does not PROVE that the picture was taken there. I do wish non-scientists would not use words they do not understand.
--------------------------------- Obscurum per obscurius. Ad astra per alas porci. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
So Dave, you asked for the demo to be removed?:
Quote:
I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
Your final sentence:
Quote:
I do wish non-scientists would not use words they do not understand.
has far too many negatives for a Monday morning, I couldn't reduce them with a Karnaugh map, so I'm going home with a headache!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
