Slashdot Mirror

Ahhh, BBC BASIC. Fond memories! :)

I started with the Acorn Electron. Most, if not all, of its keys had secondary shortcuts to frequently used BASIC commands which is what first got me interested enough to investigate further.

A couple of years or so later, we inherited a BBC Model B followed by a BBC Master 512 and I'd spend many an hour typing in code from Acorn User magazine and the like. At a pretty young age I was making my own programs in BASIC, even making rudimentary educational programs to run in primary school when they started adopting BBCs there. I remember coming across 'cryptic code' embedded within BBC BASIC that I eventually found out to be assembly language, and started to dabble with that, developing some very basic games and drawing programs.

Somewhere along the line there was a Spectrum and an Amstrad. I can't quite remember where they came from but they taught me that different computers had their subtle differences.

I always wanted an Acorn Archimedes but never owned one myself, although did have use of them at school. Instead, my parents were donated an early IBM PC (8086 CPU I think) from a relative and I found a copy of Turbo Pascal from somewhere. I think this is the point I started to grasp the fundamentals of 'more serious' programming.

It was all PCs from then on, using Turbo Pascal and Turbo C++ in DOS at first, to then falling in love with GUIs (yes, and Windows!) and spending a lot of time in Borland Delphi and MS Visual BASIC. As time went by, I realised C++ was what 'serious' programmers were using so figured Visual C++ was the way to go (back in version 1 days). I never really got into that though, much preferring Delphi at the time.

It was when I first put Linux on my 486 that things really opened up and I started using different languages for different tasks. I started examining other people's code, learning routines and tricks, best practices, getting to know some of the ins and outs of Perl (sadly, mostly forgotten now), Tcl, shell scripting, etc, as well as honing my skills in C/C++ and Java. For my sins, I've also spent a lot of time in PHP for web projects.

Nowadays, I wouldn't say I'm an expert in any one language, but I have a good enough knowledge and experience of programming in general to get stuff done, hopefully in a reasonably professional manner!

People for the Eating of Tasty Animals--BEHOLD!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/358317592

and

http://www.amatteroftasteinc.com/peta.html

Claimer: I proudly own these "Mashed Potatoes" and "Vegetarian" shirts and people take pictures of us all the time--99%+ of people love them and they're the BEST ice-breakers! (No joke)

This is pretty awesome, but Largest LEGO model, no way
LEGO House

Wrong Trek. This stuff looks more like these food cube things from TOS.

Of course, this is only the 21st century.

Hey, Yahoo, remember that other photo-sharing site you already fucking own?

Please, do, tell me what 1.1 billion dollars worth of tumblr brings to the table that a mild reskin(to put the pictures with captions in columns, rather than in 'galleries') of flickr could have ready to demo inside a week and roll out in short order?

Ants in Weird/Odd Places:

Bugs in the computer: Sun
Microsystems, Inc. knows why Brazil is known to its native inhabitants as the kingdom of the ants.

Ants in yer... Pants? NOT!
(Toshiba notebook/laptop); Ants
Invade Apple iBook; "Yep, those are ants in that laptop".

(Tele)phones: Panasonic Cordless Phone and Ants In My Nokia Mobile Phone (A Yahoo! account is required).

Ants in Omniview switchboxes: An e-mail story of ants invading a network
switchbox.

Argentine ants invade a network hub.

Computerworld on "Ants had taken up residence in a guy's external hard drive. Seen on /.).

A photograph showing ants nesting in a guy's phone box, affecting his
digital subscriber line (DSL) connection and phone system.

A 38 seconds YouTube video showing crazy ants in a computer mouse.

One minute and 19 seconds Break video, from VideoSift: "Creepy Surprise. -- Wife asked me to try to get the printer to work, since she was having some problems with it. Imagine my surprise when I looked inside..."

Help,
A Colony Of Ants Attacked My Enterprise Rental Car And Ruined My
Vacation!

I vaguely recall the WiFi working when I went from Seattle to Vancouver BC. Not terribly fast, but enough to email friends and family about the delays. (A swing-bridge had got stuck in the 'open' position, and the train had to wait for half an hour or so. The driver had then disappeared somewhere to get a sandwich, causing another ten minutes delay.)

Amtrak is great fun (some of the announcements on that Vancouver trip were gloriously surreal) but it's hardly an efficient means of transportation. I got the train from Seattle to Portland once, and realised it's a similar distance between the two cities as it is from Brussels to Paris. I used to catch the Thalys between Brussels and Paris - in the time it took to go from Seattle to Portland (including a freight-train-induced pause in sidings), I could have gone from Brussels to Paris to Brussels then back to Paris again.

You'll be fine. http://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/3109815261/

This is why.

IEEE Spectrum apologised for that article:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/computing/hardware/big-win-for-the-losers-at-dwave

It's a quantum computer all right, just not a universal quantum computer. But it should still show quantum speedups for discrete optimization problems.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/04/further-proof-for-controversial-quantum-computer.html

So far, tests have been very promising:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829173.500-commercial-quantum-computer-leaves-pc-in-the-dust.html

If it continues to speed up like this, there are some very exciting times ahead of us!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/8054771535/ (Rose's Law, the quantum computer equivalent of Moore's Law)

Perhaps mass transit works better other places -- I'm sure that in (picking a city at random) Frankfurt it is more pleasant than here. But mass transit is not a land of faeries and rainbow-pooping unicorns.

No unicorns and faeries in London, but I've never seen human faeces anywhere on public transport. Some years ago someone was almost sick on me in a lift -- she was very, very, drunk. Occasional pools of vomit in the corners of stations isn't especially unusual on a Friday or Saturday night, but the cleaners clean it up pretty quickly. Again, it's drunk people rather than mentally ill etc, and it's very bad form.

Drunk people on public transport can get injured. There's a set of advertisements urging people to take care, like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fuzitalondon/292988703/in/photostream/ -- one of them is something about drinking/alcohol. Of course, the injuries are usually relatively minor, the person probably *very* drunk, and the bystanders unhurt. Falling down a long escalator or in front of a train can be fatal.

That reminds me of something I saw in Beijing: two policemen were carrying/dragging a man so drunk he was hardly able to walk through the station. I followed -- I wanted to know what they would do, and it was the direction for my transfer anyway. They took him to the platform, waited for the train, and helped him sit down. Then they left.

If I were him I would post the original, and the post-production images side by side. It would be very easy for him to do.

You mean like this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gunthert/8485283411/sizes/o/in/photostream/

A side by side comparison of the photo that won the prize and the same photo published the day after it was taken.

There was a lot of work done on the light levels in the prize winner, but it is the same photo.

It's not too hard to spot the ISS going overhead when the conditions are right - it's like a fairly bright star going at a fair speed across the sky. It's visible for just minutes at a time - it's sufficiently close to the Earth that you'd definitely need a hefty world-wide network to communicate directly.

(NASA ISS sightings site here.)

Someone had an interesting comment in the New Yorker article:

I see that you refer to "Philomena" in your comment rather than the "Philomela" of the text. St. Philomena was a virgin martyr whose times and story are roughly contemporaneous to the composition of the book. Possibly there is some connection to the "revirginization" quotes within the lost text. In addition, the tears may refer to the liquid reputed to have sprung from Philomena's statue in Italy in the 19th century...

Also, there is more than one reference on the net. There is a Flickr image from a Sotheby's auction in 1854, which was just uploaded yesterday.

Yes, this is just like a plenoptic (light field) camera. If you want to experiment yourself, all you need is non-moving subject material, a digital camera, and time. Take photos from slightly shifted viewing positions of a subject. Then use Hugin or Photoshop to align them on a chosen subject (or focal plane). Average all the frames together, and you'll have a synthetic focus image of your subject.

With some care and effort, you can even supersample the pool of images and get super-resolution output, where the result is more pixels than any source image (but far less than the sum of all the images).

I've been doing experimentation along these lines for a few years, and here are the resulting photos of scenes from the Chicago area. I was inspired by the work of Marc Levoy, and his Stanford Multi-Camera array.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/monkchips/4254681996/

There's two problems with the current crop of 3D printers. First, the printers are fiddly. It is possible to print out decent objects on a good printer (personally, I'm a fan of the Ultimaker). However, it requires tuning the printer and the software and maintaining them. It's a solution for tinkerers, not for Joe Average. Companies like MakerBot are deluding themselves when they think they've got a RepRap-class printer they can sell already assembled "for the masses". They still need too much maintenance.

Second, you can't just print anything and expect it to look good. If your object doesn't require support material (overhangs are all under a reasonable angle), and the slices don't contain more than one connected surface, then it will look beautiful on a decent printer. If you need support material though, then you have to deal with removing it, which is nontrivial. If you have more than one surface per slice, then you have to deal with stringing. That's not too bad if the surfaces are far apart (you can remove it easily), but it's difficult if they are close together. These are the limitations of plastic extrusion printers today, and you need to design models taking them into account.

On decent prints: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcan42/8542507791/in/photostream/ . That's a gear, about 8cm across. You have to get up really close to be able to see those layers with the naked eye (they're 0.1mm tall). The roughness on the top and bottom surfaces is probably on the order of 50 microns. It is possible to go smaller on this printer.
On fiddling: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcan42/8543920590/in/photostream/ . Left print is before tensioning belts, right print after. Of course, one of the cool aspects is that I was able to print the belt tensioners on the printer itself.

I'm very happy with my printer, but I would never recommend it to someone who isn't already a hardware hacker.

There's two problems with the current crop of 3D printers. First, the printers are fiddly. It is possible to print out decent objects on a good printer (personally, I'm a fan of the Ultimaker). However, it requires tuning the printer and the software and maintaining them. It's a solution for tinkerers, not for Joe Average. Companies like MakerBot are deluding themselves when they think they've got a RepRap-class printer they can sell already assembled "for the masses". They still need too much maintenance.

Second, you can't just print anything and expect it to look good. If your object doesn't require support material (overhangs are all under a reasonable angle), and the slices don't contain more than one connected surface, then it will look beautiful on a decent printer. If you need support material though, then you have to deal with removing it, which is nontrivial. If you have more than one surface per slice, then you have to deal with stringing. That's not too bad if the surfaces are far apart (you can remove it easily), but it's difficult if they are close together. These are the limitations of plastic extrusion printers today, and you need to design models taking them into account.

On decent prints: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcan42/8542507791/in/photostream/ . That's a gear, about 8cm across. You have to get up really close to be able to see those layers with the naked eye (they're 0.1mm tall). The roughness on the top and bottom surfaces is probably on the order of 50 microns. It is possible to go smaller on this printer.
On fiddling: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcan42/8543920590/in/photostream/ . Left print is before tensioning belts, right print after. Of course, one of the cool aspects is that I was able to print the belt tensioners on the printer itself.

I'm very happy with my printer, but I would never recommend it to someone who isn't already a hardware hacker.

nah he wants this...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joelsp/4651465122/

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/fermaregreenhill/

Brilliant. Photos of themselves committing the crime, posing with the animals they released, posted publicly. How about they just turn themselves in to the police right now?

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/fermaregreenhill/

Update: these two guys were also photographed after the bombing, standing next to a police van, with their backpacks still on: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hahatango/8653970482/sizes/o/in/set-72157633252445135/ So at least those weren't the same backpacks that exploded.

Actually it evolved into "Grizzly Bear on a Motorcycle carrying a Great White Shark with a Laser on its head." i.e. The most dangerous animal in the world. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianleino/4325491008/

and it doesn't even say where we can eat Teslas. There's this one from 2008, but I couldn't find a model S. Is there a new 3d printer that can print edible Teslas?

My firefox looks pretty much like this:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5176/5500087378_793df8b18b_o.png

Please note that I'm not complaining about it, it was just an observation I made. I don't need it "fixed". When I was looking for that screenshot to post, I did see examples of the arrangement you are referring to.

I didn't think it looked better, but it's probably a good idea on small screens.

Have some of this.

There's some pretty decent views on the way, too - the train runs right next to the sea for a significant portion of the route.

Foveon is only superior in resolution if the number of output pixels is the same.

That is a pretty bad way to measure things, because it ignores things like color moire and other artifacts you get with bayer sensors. As I stated, resolution is not everything. And a Foveon chip delivers a constant level of detail, whereas a bayer chip inherantly will deliver levels of detail that vary by scene color.

In a scene with only red (say the hood of a red car) you are shooting with just 1/3 of the camera sensors capturing detail when you shoot with a bayer chip. So the red flower you are about to bring up is converting your 30MP bayer camera into a 7.5 MP camera. This is easy to see when you shoot a color resolution chart.

But the problem is colors.

The solution is Foveon, which has more accurate colors overall and treats all colors equally in terms of capturing detail.

This leads to metamerism, where two colors perceived the same to the human eye will look like two different colors to a Foveon,

In nine years of shooting with Foveon sensors I have never once seen that happen. In nine years of seeing people like you claim that none have ever been able to show a single image that exhibits this effect.

That's the problem with people that live in a world of theory vs. understanding what cameras can (and cannot) do by shooting them. Instead you pretend you understand what they will do because of your THEORY of how they will work, compared to the real world where the whole camera is a series of many different components and software, any one of which may compensate for issues that arise in one part of the system.

If you shoot a bright red flower and the red is overexposed, it will "blow out". On a Bayer sensor this looks like a very red flower.

Sorry but it goes pink regardless of camera.

Again, if you shot real cameras instead of just leaning on theory you would understand this.

The sad thing about the Foveon is that it would make a great video sensor.

In reality all of the strengths of the Foveon chip do not matter in video, bayer works well there because of inherent color and detail smoothing helping in a scene with motion. That's why it has never been considered seriously for consumer video applications (it has some place in scientific video capture).

The Foveon has always been inferior in resolution overall photosite-for-photosite, superior only is a small subset of color combinations

The "small subset" is any photographic subject with blue or red. Like fall leaves, anything with detail against a sky, red or blue fabrics with fine detail, etc.

That sure is a "small subset".

it has been, in fact, a dismal technology in terms of high ISO

In the past possibly. The current cameras handle ISO up to ISO 1600 well in color, up to ISO 6400 in B&W.

An ISO 6400 example.

Anyone who would rate this as informative has never studied this topic nor understands what the D800 is.

From your very link:

"But, as I wrote, this is the stuff of web forum fights, not something that serious photographers really spend that much time fussing about."

And the D800e I understand quite well, having shot it before. It has no AA filter which makes it somewhat sharper but also gives you some "nice" color moire (especially in fabric). You plainly don't understand the camera too well yourself if you don't understand this tradeoff that Bayer sensor cameras have to make.

The most interesting criticisms of their DP2 review are color problems.

Not really since it has more accurate colors than most other cameras, and more importantly consistent colors within any given scene. No camera will give you accurate colors 100% of the time

But if you can edit the image or apply a custom white balance and have all of the colors be relatively accurate, then you are better off.

Foveon draws from a small subset of lenses, a small selection of inferior bodies, and poor software support which is a critical handicap.

And from this it's easy to discern you are just one of the small cadre of ignorant Fovoen haters, since we are talking about a camera with a fixed lens (that exceeds Leica in quality BTW) so pretty obviously the lens selection is irrelevant.

I'll let you have the last word, since I have properly debunked your ignorance and shown people just how little you really know about an area you pretend to understand.

it's a demo for crying out loud. it's meant to show off as much as possible in a short space of time, NOT show you how you MUST use it every day. a looping video of a dark night sky with clouds drifting by etc. would be perfect. doesn't obscure your text BUT provides a nice "pattern". i don't happen to have such video content with me right now. imagine:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopics/118890688/

but without the people, (and the pool right at the bottom, not the middle), with the video edited to loop seamlessly.

the point of features is to make it POSSIBLE, with visual content. given the logic of "don't have features because gasp. someone may not provide perfect content" would imply we should not ever set wallpapers on our desktops because.. GASP.. it may clash with icons/text content there and may make it hard to read! just create/find appropriate content.

And it still looks like shit.

Hehheh! A little comparison: Windows Blue screenshot from the Hothardware article and default Ubuntu desktop. Indeed, which one looks better...

I'm just laughing at their canine... fashion sense. I'm perfectly ok with being out-programmed by them. But my animals are better accoutered. :)

Yes, but, there's this .

Not sure that's actually recoverable.

While I agree that the content providers are out of control and that the congress is in fact just their legal arm there is still the problem that content has a cost to produce. If everyone didn't pay for it and everyone stole it then the content would dry up.

Some content does. Notably movies. Music, not so much. I'm a musician, I have a complete 32 track studio in my home, along with a full band's worth of instruments. If you brought me several rhythm guitarists, a singer, a keyboard player, a bassist, a drummer and a lead player, all without gear, I could set them up, record them, either together or by individual tracks, and produce a high quality master CD for them for zero cost beyond what I've already invested -- and what I've invested (some years back now) is less than a cheap car, and even that was far more than you'd have to spend today to do the same thing. Or, if I went acoustic, I could walk into a bar, sit down, and begin to play and sing. No cost other than my time. Dinner, a few beers (not too many or the performance... ugh, lol) maybe a few bucks in a hat... that'd make it practical, if the audiences found me worthy. Attention from the opposite sex used to go a long way too, though today, I'm settled down.

So bands... no. Most television productions aren't worth a plugged nickel. The acting is terrible, the scripts worse. Something like Avatar or the new Star Trek... some spending happening there and no way around it as yet. Less in the future, I think, but still, gotta give your point to you on that front. All I can say there is I own both recordings; not even a slight urge to grab them for free. Well worth the cost. I'd like to be able to back them up, lest something happen like what happened to Heavy Metal (rights bitch fight), or perhaps one of the kids using it for a clay pigeon, etc. I can't.

If everyone didn't pay for it and everyone stole it then the content would dry up.

No, you really can't make that argument. There wouldn't have been any music, opera, plays, street performers prior to about 1920 if that was the case. But there were. There are other forms of funding that the arts can extract from society than direct charge for recordings. We can ague the merit of those methods, but you can't say they didn't work, because they most assuredly did. I suspect they'd work again, and in such an environment, we'd see some very fine performers, as well as a good bit more variety. But that is, of course, just my opinion.

What you're missing here is that music, and I presume other forms of performance are, is a joy to produce. I'd kick you out of the way to get a space to play. It's not always about money. Ask yourself if you'd have to be paid to have sex. It's kind of like that. I couldn't tell you how many times I've played for free, both solo and with bands. And I'm pretty good -- fifty years of experience now, rock, blues, hard rock, even some folk, that's me. I just love music and performing musically, and that's true for a very large portion of the other musicians I've known over the years. Fame isn't the prime motivator for everyone, nor is money. Sex, well, yeah. ;)

I personally try my best to not purchase music and content from other than the artist.

This is an excellent strategy and I encourage you to pursue it. I always buy a CD from a live performance, if they offer one. Or several, hell, I'll buy your whole catalog if given a chance and you gave me a nice evening.

What you have to do, though, to make that strategy really effective, is get everyone you know to pursue it, and they their acquaintances, etc., ad infinitum.

Best I saw myself was 6.5 years on a Solaris 8 system. I took a screenshot before I shut it down:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/doubletwist/3662948158/

And yes, I know it was insecure. It wasn't a system I managed outside of being tasked with decommissioning it.

Moonlight is just reflected sunlight, you just need more of it to make the colours come out.

E.g. see http://www.flickr.com/photos/dansdata/3074862610/ for an example - this photo was taken under a full moon, 30 second exposure.

You should change your desktop background to this

Take a snapshot of the wall and put your tablet n front of it to make it appear like it's 'see-through'. And that about sums up the usefulness of said device. As an example, refer to http://www.flickr.com/photos/lewiscraik/2463912247/

[T221s] Yup, me too, and I have mounted them in portrait format. Here's a photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7500206@N08/6851350945/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eumetsat/8474853633/

"An image from the SEVIRI instrument aboard our Meteosat-10 geostationary satellite. The vapour trail left by the meteor that was seen near Chelyabinsk in Russia on 15th February 2013 is visible in the centre of the image."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45676693@N03/6959137824/

How much TNT did it take to simulate this nuclear test?

Here is a picture of 100 tons of TNT set off before the Trinity shot to calibrate equipment.

The NK shot was 7 kt, so imagine 70 times that amount of TNT.

That's a lot of TNT....

The only ads that bother me are pop ups, and I don't ever serve those. I don't block ads myself, though I like to think I'm pretty quick to knock off a pop-up. Don't like pop-up menus either, come to that... if I didn't click on it, I don't want it to react. Hover menus are stupid, IMHO.

I actually think it's useful that they offer me things that I might actually want. Much more interesting than ads for things I'm not even remotely interested in. If I go look at monitors on Amazon, I see banners with monitors, swingarms, etc. for several days. Fine with me.

You know, if I put something in the commons one way or another, I try to be explicit about it, like my SDR software . I actually mean it to be free. But I do like earning an income, even it's its very small, from my web operations, and should an ad catch the eye of a visitor, and they click on it... that's fine with me. They don't have to click on an ad, and the content has value if you're into SDRs. If you're not into SDRs, I can't imagine why you'd be there anyway, lol.

I guess I feel that earning isn't evil, and particularly not so if the surfer gets something of real value. Contrariwise, I serve a lot of pages where no one clicks on anything, and in that case, I took a risk and I knew the bounds of it. Making sure images can't be deep mined defines what my risk is a little better, that's all. You want the image, you'll have to come get it.

I used to have a moderately heavy GIF animation on one of my sites, thing was *really* subject to deep mining. It was a trace of a diamond rotating, refraction and reflection zipping away. (here now) So I wrote a CGI that moved it every few hours, and put a note under it that basically said, if you want to use the image, save it, put it on your own site, and bless ya, but don't link to it here. You had to see the log of image misses to really understand how many people ignored the gift of the image, and just ate up my bandwidth.

One guy went so far as to watch the site with his *own* CGI, and follow the image around. So I wrote the appropriate apache esoterica, and when a request for that image came in from his site, I served him up his own... special... version. About 24 hours later, I looked, and he'd finally moved the animation to his own storage and was serving it himself.

Dear "Webmaster", nobody cares about your shitty website packed full of annoying ads. Get over it already.

If someone clicks the Google Image Search 'high-resolution' link for one of my photos from Flickr, they get a medium-resolution version with no description, attribution or copyright information. (Example search page here.

If they go to the ad-free Flickr page, they get links to much higher resolution versions, associated images and also get informed that it's under a super-open Creative Commons Attribution licence.

Autodesk has never made the Macintosh one of their main platforms. Perhaps they are having some fun putting out little applets for iOS, but the CAD scene has never been strong on the Mac platform.

Historically Autocad was a DOS and then Windows platform. Real CAD historically was a UNIX workstation thing.

You need to look recently. Other than Inventor (which the still haven't ported for some unknown reason), AutoDesk has made a very STRONG commitment to OS X, and particularly with AutoCAD. And even Inventor (as well as others) are fully supported under Windows virtualization on the Mac.

And if you want a full Unix-Style OS X compatible World-Class CAD/CAM/CAE environment, look no farther than Siemens, who has ported their Unigraphics UG/NX PLM Suite to several platforms, including, as of 2009, to OS X. And I do believe that this package SMOKES that nasty AutoCAD, because even VectorWorks does that, quite handily. And VectorWorks has existed on Macs since at least 1989.

The thing you need to know about those sticks is that they are *really* prone to overload and various nasty IM-like failure modes. Fun, you bet, but you kinda get what you pay for there. If you want them to work well, you'll spend ten times the effort on filters in between the antenna system and the unit in most install situations. In a really rural area you could get away with it, as everything is (relatively) weak then.

Best one out there right now is about $200 US, it's the FUNcube pro+ dongle. That's near-0 through about 2 GHZ, so you get LF through L band, IIRC. Still has some overload issues (not awful, but not what you'd really want, either), but for two hundred bucks, ya can't beat it.

-- Not associated with the FUNcube folks either, other than my (free) SdrDx software supports it.

For HF:

SDR-IQ (about $500 from RFSPACE or a store) and my SdrDx software (free) -- Windows and Mac versions. 14 bit decoding, USB connection to the computer, ethernet server software (free) available so you can remote the head unit.

192 kHz bw coverage from a few Hz to 30 Mhz: AM, SAM, FM, USB, LSB, CW... output to (free) decoding for SSTV, WEFAX, RTTY, Olivia, Contestia, Domino, Heil, DREAM (digital SW broadcasts), MFSK, MT63, PSK, QPSK, PSKR, THOR, THROB, NAVTEX/SITORB... pretty much you name it.

RF waterfall with palette control, RF spectrum (signal) display, independent analysis scope (RTTY, audio, spectrum, vector, 3D, Smeter/Squelch, carrier, audio waterfall)

Band markings, channel and freq ID database, auto SW station ID, point and click brick wall envelope control, multiple notch filters, TDM filtering, multioctave 50/60 hz filters, memories and memory markers, DSP noise and impulse processing, wideband recording (192 khz at a time) and playback, LPF, HPF, compatible (on the mac) with Audio Hijack Pro and Soundflower for even more audio processing goodness...

External tuning knob support, midi control surface support (to remap real knobs and buttons to other controls like volume, RF gain, squelch, blanker settings, passband edges, tuning by steps, etc.), remote antenna tuning support, remote radio control support (TCP/IP, includes example Python clients.)

SDR makes analog radio look like some very un-serious stuff. I'm listening to some hams on 3870 kHz now.

-- not associated with RFSPACE. I just write code. :)

Here's a virtual focus photo I did a few years ago, placing the focal plane on a skew.

If you take photos from a large enough set of positions with a normal camera and some time, you can get the same thing lytro does, but only with still subjects.

explain to me how this windows store would not infringe

pricture of a windows store

The Apple store has fewer blurry faces in front. Their customers must be more attractive.