I guess fiber to the house works differently in your area. Here, the telco equipment finishes at the optical switch, which has 8 cat6 ports. My router/firewall is on one of them feeding the "safe" network, another feeds the "unsafe" network (for work PCs used at home, since the VPN requires some ports which I will not open on our router), and another feeds the IPTV decoder. The telco has access to their optical switch where bandwidth limits can be enforced, but does not have access to my router, which I bought elsewhere.
Do you mention FTs just for reference, or are you implying that they are typically used in deconvolutions? In my experience, signals with any amount of noise are much better handled with iterative algorithms.
Yes. Fourier methods are unlikely to be used in practice on images. However, it's instructive to look at the process in a transform space to understand the extent to which information is irrecoverably lost in the optical path. The consequences can be explained using any suitable integral transform, but engineers are most familiar with Fourier and wavelet methods.
Suppose the Fourier transform of the "perfect" image is J, and the Fourier transform of the exact blurring kernel is K, then the transform of the blurred image is L=JK. If the kernel is known exactly, and has adequate magnitude through the frequency range of interest, the image can be recovered simply by using an inverse of the kernel J=L/K. Due to the physics of photon detection, the measured image will also contain some amount of noise N, so even in this ideal case, the recovered image will be corrupted by an amount of noise J'=(L+N)/K. Realistically, the kernel is not known exactly, and may have small magnitude at some frequencies so that its inverse is unreliable. A related consequence is that the blurred image at those bands will be primarily noise. Use of pseudo-inverses is also unreliable, since they are discontinuous near a spectral zero with very high sensitivity to perturbation near that zero. So-called Wiener deconvolution attempts to circumvent this by diagonally biasing the transform of the estimated kernel before inverting, but with generally unsatisfactory results.
Information which has been destroyed cannot be recovered, by any method. Any attempt to do so would merely amplify the noise in the measured blurry image at those bands. Iterative methods (typically a variant of Richardon-Lucy for images) try to minimize the amplification of noise in various ways, all imperfect but preferable to a direct Fourier method. Most iterative methods will, left to themselves, converge on the same asymptote as the Fourier method. However, iterative deconvolution methods always employ a regularization step in each iteration, whose primary purpose is to attenuate adjustments in bands where the kernel is uncertain. They also generally use a small number of iterations, since the first iterations are less affected by noise than later iterations. The end result is that information which was destroyed is not spuriously recreated from noise (in principle at least).
If you're interested, I recommend: P. Jansson (ed.), Deconvolution of Images and Spectra, 2nd ed., Academic Press, 1996. Alas, it appears to be out of print (and my copy is not for sale).
It won't help at all if the object is moving. In fact, this feature should be switched off if you're trying to photograph a moving object with the camera (common enough, and not just in sports). It would not be able to compensate for a mismatch between the object speed and your tracking movement, and would do entirely the wrong thing even if you tracked the moving object perfectly for the shot. In this case, there is no substitute for adequate light and/or a fast lens and/or a smooth accurate tracking movement.
As another comment, deconvolution requires a very accurate approximation of the true convolution kernel, which may be provided by the motion sensors. However, to reconstruct the image without artifacts, the true kernel must not approach zero in the Fourier domain below the Nyquist frequency of the intended reconstruction (which is limited by the antialias filter in front of the Bayer mask). In fact, if the kernel's Fourier transform has too small a magnitude at some frequency, the reconstruction at that frequency will be essentially noise, or will be zero if adequate regularization is used. If the motion blur is more than a few pixels, this will generally mean that the reconstructed image will have an abridged spectrum in the direction of blur, compared to directions in which no blur occurred. Of course, if your hand is so shaky and the exposure so long that blur occurs in all directions, then the spectrum of the reconstructed image will be more uniform. It is likely to be truncated compared to the spectrum of an image taken without motion blur.
The quality of the reconstructed image would also be limited by the effects of other convolutions in the optical pathway. For instance, if you're using a cheap superzoom lens, don't expect to get anywhere near the antialias filter's Nyquist frequency in the final image, as the lens will have buggered up the details nonlinearly across the image even before the motion blur is added. If you're using nice lenses (Canon "L" series or Pentax "*" series and suchlike), then this will not be an issue.
The method would seem to be useful in low-ish light photography of stationary objects. A sober photographer would beat a drunk photographer at this, but the technique would help both to some extent. A photographer using a tripod would do best, of course.
Planetes was very well made, and did not rely on any non-existing technology or speculative physics.
Another dealing with space junk cleanup was the comedy series Quark, which was also excellent, but in different ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(TV_series)
Maybe it will just run on regular (user-supplied) AA cells, whether rechargeable or not. And while we're speculating wildly, the expected running time on regular cells may not be very good...
No really I have no idea what Playboy is. But if you're looking for some good articles, subscribe to Asimov's Science Fiction.
FYI, Asimov had several stories published in Playboy - "Fire zone emerald", "The All-consuming", "Pizza man", "Sparring partner", and a few others.
Playboy also rejected the Asimov story "Stay, Oh fleeting moment" (which apparently remained unpublished), and Asimov wrote a satire on Playboy called "What is this thing called love".
Satellites should be outfitted with pooper scoopers and plastic bags.
Or just deploy captain Quark with Betty, Betty's clone, and Ficus to clean up the galaxy http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077066. Another SciFi series that deserved more than one season, but got cancelled before finishing even the first season.
When I was younger and went hiking quite a lot, I'd save up the extra and buy the cloth maps at inch-to-the-mile scale from Ordinance Survey. They actually weren't much more expensive than the paper maps, but had equal resolution (excellent quality lightweight cloth) and could survive bad weather and bad handling a lot better. I don't recall seeing a cloth map in a very long time.
About half of the BBS I frequented back in the 80s were dedicated solely to hosting warez for downloading.
I suspect you were in a small minority.
The several BBSs I frequented in the mid 80s had nothing to do with warez. They had copious amounts of shareware and freeware for download, and I ended up with boxes of 5.25" 360KB floppies filled with the stuff at a lightning-fast 1200bps. They also hosted MMO games (yay Trade Wars!) and message boards, among other things. One of them also gave me access to internet (uucp, ftp) and an internet email address (bang-path, around 1985).
The Wikipedia article on NetApp talks about them bringing a suit against Sun/ZFS and that Sun countersued, but doesn't mention the verdict.
Read all about it (the story so far, as presented by Sun/Oracle): http://www.sun.com/lawsuit/zfs, which provides links to a number of legal documents and patents and rulings from the PTO.
Basically, the patent which was central to NetApp's claim of infringement was found not to apply to ZFS. A second patent asserted to be infringed was rejected on reexamination by the PTO, but NetApp is still squirming through the appeals process. The current round of threats could be NetApp's last gasp/whimper on the topic.
Unfortunately yes. Perhaps a way around this will be provided later.
More to the point from Google's perspective: it would kill the "unauthorized uploads" and other astroturfing or marketing tricks that Viacom indulged in and then used to sue Google.
Interesting example. Here are some results using a 7-year-old laptop (a newer PC would probably be a lot faster).
454ms - Opera 10.60
553ms - Firefox 3.6.6
661ms - Epiphany 2.30.2
992ms - Chromium 6.0.453.0
The two WebKit browsers were the slowest, while the Presto browser was fastest. It's not always so, of course.
When you are caught break a regular law (speeding, larceny, etc.), you can expect to be punished with a fine or worse.
If you manage to break any of the Laws of Thermodynamics, you can expect to be lauded, copied, co-author a stream of high-impact papers, get offered some cushy sinecures, and eventually receive a Nobel prize.
The far likelier outcome, of course, is to be given an Ignobel prize, for a fruitless and ill-conceived waste of effort. I suspect the UK government can look forward to at least an honorable mention at the next Ig award ceremonies.
FYI, on my system the opera:about page shows it as version "10.60 internal", but its browser identification is:
"Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux i686; U; en) Presto/2.6.30 Version/10.60"
which could be construed as meaning either version 9.80 or version 10.60.
First off, who are these scientist? are they respectable or creditable noble prize winners or some college intern doing a year in industry?
secondly what is there back-ground, I currently took over someones position for electronic engineer only to find my predecessors area was ASTRO PHYSICS
One problem is spelling, another is grammar. Using them properly can improve communication. It's not too late; here are some hints for you.
1. Use plurals where needed: "these scientists" for example.
2. Use a capital letter to start a sentence (except in a tiny number of very special cases).
3. Use a period to finish a sentence (unless a question mark or exclamation mark is called for instead).
4. Don't unnecessarily hyphenate words such as "background".
5. You probably meant "credible", not "creditable".
6. You probably meant "Nobel", not "noble".
7. Learn the difference between "there" and "their" (and "they're", just in case).
8. Use apostrophes where appropriate, such as in "someone's position", or "predecessor's area".
9. Please try to use "it's" and "its" correctly.
10. Learn the difference between "your" and "you're".
Sorry, but your post passed the threshold that triggers my inner grammar bolshevik. I'll be back to normal soon.
Please tell me more about this "stealing from the public domain" bit
People probably refer to the repeated retroactive extension of copyright for works still in copyright. Calling this stealing is questionable (though morally clear enough).
Actual stealing from the public domain has taken place in the European Union. Some works which had been in the public domain for years became copyright-protected works again. Here's how they did it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_harmonising_the_term_of_copyright_protection#Copyright_restoration
Now, that's stealing from the public domain, without any question.
My original degree was done in the days of hand-written pages being hammered in on an old typewriter. But there's no need to frighten the youngsters. I returned to university in mid-career for additional degrees.
I did my MSc thesis in Word, several versions ago. It was painful in the extreme, especially the deficient equation handling: no way to search for an equation element, or to search & replace across equations to rename a variable. It was also appallingly awkward for handling citations and cross-references - it's OK for a handful, but sucks when you've got hundreds (click-click-scroll-scroll-click-etc.). If you define some decent styles and apply them consistently, then basic text layout and formatting was OK, which was about its only redeeming feature. But then there were Word's fuck-ups in formatting or file corruption, which I defended against by changing the file name every time I edited the thing.
Older and wiser, my subsequent PhD thesis was done in LaTeX, also some years back. It required adding a few simple macros for my particular purposes and fiddling a bit with some page layout parameters (so figures & tables would be placed sensibly), but these then applied through the whole document. Equations were correct and could be searched, cross-referencing was trivially easy, and several hundred citations were a doddle. The joys of working in a text editor also cannot be ignored. As a result, I could concentrate on the content of the thesis, without fighting against the tool being used.
We are compelled to use Word for certain collaborative documents at work, but if a PDF is sufficient, I nearly always produce it in LaTeX - the easier faster way. Also, some conferences and journals require that manuscripts be submitted in LaTeX, and usually provide a suitable template. This is especially true in fields where equations are extensively used.
Hulu remains utterly broken. Apparently, even if you offer to pay their $9.95 (or whatever), it still won't work in most of the world. They won't even show you the spamvert ads.
In what world do any women hit a better than 60% logical statement rate?
In this world, there are very few people who approach 60% logical statements even on a good day. The average is much lower. We may be quite logical for work-related stuff (bunch of PhD guys & gals doing R&D), but not socially. Excessive use of logic in social issues probably hampers reproductive success...
Slashdot Mirror
"If more nerds got some, maybe we'd have the Higgs Boson on lock already."
Hear that ladies? The future of mankind is in your hands! Please?????
Dammit, you use your hands. Let the ladies use something better...
Your surmise of a back door appears to be correct. This back door remains open even if you disable remote management of the router, and it does not even require knowledge of the admin password you choose. Here's a post detailing how to disable the port 4567 back door using telnet to the router http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/r21990593-modemrouter-Remove-the-actiontec-verizon-backdoor-on-port-456
I guess fiber to the house works differently in your area. Here, the telco equipment finishes at the optical switch, which has 8 cat6 ports. My router/firewall is on one of them feeding the "safe" network, another feeds the "unsafe" network (for work PCs used at home, since the VPN requires some ports which I will not open on our router), and another feeds the IPTV decoder. The telco has access to their optical switch where bandwidth limits can be enforced, but does not have access to my router, which I bought elsewhere.
Do you mention FTs just for reference, or are you implying that they are typically used in deconvolutions? In my experience, signals with any amount of noise are much better handled with iterative algorithms.
Yes. Fourier methods are unlikely to be used in practice on images. However, it's instructive to look at the process in a transform space to understand the extent to which information is irrecoverably lost in the optical path. The consequences can be explained using any suitable integral transform, but engineers are most familiar with Fourier and wavelet methods.
Suppose the Fourier transform of the "perfect" image is J, and the Fourier transform of the exact blurring kernel is K, then the transform of the blurred image is L=JK. If the kernel is known exactly, and has adequate magnitude through the frequency range of interest, the image can be recovered simply by using an inverse of the kernel J=L/K. Due to the physics of photon detection, the measured image will also contain some amount of noise N, so even in this ideal case, the recovered image will be corrupted by an amount of noise J'=(L+N)/K. Realistically, the kernel is not known exactly, and may have small magnitude at some frequencies so that its inverse is unreliable. A related consequence is that the blurred image at those bands will be primarily noise. Use of pseudo-inverses is also unreliable, since they are discontinuous near a spectral zero with very high sensitivity to perturbation near that zero. So-called Wiener deconvolution attempts to circumvent this by diagonally biasing the transform of the estimated kernel before inverting, but with generally unsatisfactory results.
Information which has been destroyed cannot be recovered, by any method. Any attempt to do so would merely amplify the noise in the measured blurry image at those bands. Iterative methods (typically a variant of Richardon-Lucy for images) try to minimize the amplification of noise in various ways, all imperfect but preferable to a direct Fourier method. Most iterative methods will, left to themselves, converge on the same asymptote as the Fourier method. However, iterative deconvolution methods always employ a regularization step in each iteration, whose primary purpose is to attenuate adjustments in bands where the kernel is uncertain. They also generally use a small number of iterations, since the first iterations are less affected by noise than later iterations. The end result is that information which was destroyed is not spuriously recreated from noise (in principle at least).
If you're interested, I recommend: P. Jansson (ed.), Deconvolution of Images and Spectra, 2nd ed., Academic Press, 1996. Alas, it appears to be out of print (and my copy is not for sale).
It won't help at all if the object is moving. In fact, this feature should be switched off if you're trying to photograph a moving object with the camera (common enough, and not just in sports). It would not be able to compensate for a mismatch between the object speed and your tracking movement, and would do entirely the wrong thing even if you tracked the moving object perfectly for the shot. In this case, there is no substitute for adequate light and/or a fast lens and/or a smooth accurate tracking movement.
As another comment, deconvolution requires a very accurate approximation of the true convolution kernel, which may be provided by the motion sensors. However, to reconstruct the image without artifacts, the true kernel must not approach zero in the Fourier domain below the Nyquist frequency of the intended reconstruction (which is limited by the antialias filter in front of the Bayer mask). In fact, if the kernel's Fourier transform has too small a magnitude at some frequency, the reconstruction at that frequency will be essentially noise, or will be zero if adequate regularization is used. If the motion blur is more than a few pixels, this will generally mean that the reconstructed image will have an abridged spectrum in the direction of blur, compared to directions in which no blur occurred. Of course, if your hand is so shaky and the exposure so long that blur occurs in all directions, then the spectrum of the reconstructed image will be more uniform. It is likely to be truncated compared to the spectrum of an image taken without motion blur.
The quality of the reconstructed image would also be limited by the effects of other convolutions in the optical pathway. For instance, if you're using a cheap superzoom lens, don't expect to get anywhere near the antialias filter's Nyquist frequency in the final image, as the lens will have buggered up the details nonlinearly across the image even before the motion blur is added. If you're using nice lenses (Canon "L" series or Pentax "*" series and suchlike), then this will not be an issue.
The method would seem to be useful in low-ish light photography of stationary objects. A sober photographer would beat a drunk photographer at this, but the technique would help both to some extent. A photographer using a tripod would do best, of course.
Planetes was very well made, and did not rely on any non-existing technology or speculative physics.
Another dealing with space junk cleanup was the comedy series Quark, which was also excellent, but in different ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(TV_series)
Maybe it will just run on regular (user-supplied) AA cells, whether rechargeable or not. And while we're speculating wildly, the expected running time on regular cells may not be very good...
No really I have no idea what Playboy is. But if you're looking for some good articles, subscribe to Asimov's Science Fiction.
FYI, Asimov had several stories published in Playboy - "Fire zone emerald", "The All-consuming", "Pizza man", "Sparring partner", and a few others.
Playboy also rejected the Asimov story "Stay, Oh fleeting moment" (which apparently remained unpublished), and Asimov wrote a satire on Playboy called "What is this thing called love".
Satellites should be outfitted with pooper scoopers and plastic bags.
Or just deploy captain Quark with Betty, Betty's clone, and Ficus to clean up the galaxy http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077066. Another SciFi series that deserved more than one season, but got cancelled before finishing even the first season.
Those colorful paper diagrams your parents used
When I was younger and went hiking quite a lot, I'd save up the extra and buy the cloth maps at inch-to-the-mile scale from Ordinance Survey. They actually weren't much more expensive than the paper maps, but had equal resolution (excellent quality lightweight cloth) and could survive bad weather and bad handling a lot better. I don't recall seeing a cloth map in a very long time.
About half of the BBS I frequented back in the 80s were dedicated solely to hosting warez for downloading.
I suspect you were in a small minority.
The several BBSs I frequented in the mid 80s had nothing to do with warez. They had copious amounts of shareware and freeware for download, and I ended up with boxes of 5.25" 360KB floppies filled with the stuff at a lightning-fast 1200bps. They also hosted MMO games (yay Trade Wars!) and message boards, among other things. One of them also gave me access to internet (uucp, ftp) and an internet email address (bang-path, around 1985).
"Information wants to be liberated"?
Information should burn its bra...
The Wikipedia article on NetApp talks about them bringing a suit against Sun/ZFS and that Sun countersued, but doesn't mention the verdict.
Read all about it (the story so far, as presented by Sun/Oracle): http://www.sun.com/lawsuit/zfs, which provides links to a number of legal documents and patents and rulings from the PTO.
Basically, the patent which was central to NetApp's claim of infringement was found not to apply to ZFS. A second patent asserted to be infringed was rejected on reexamination by the PTO, but NetApp is still squirming through the appeals process. The current round of threats could be NetApp's last gasp/whimper on the topic.
This kills even legal use of music.
Unfortunately yes. Perhaps a way around this will be provided later.
More to the point from Google's perspective: it would kill the "unauthorized uploads" and other astroturfing or marketing tricks that Viacom indulged in and then used to sue Google.
Nothing of value was lost, since nothing of value was ever present.
Move along to the next topic, please.
Ok, here's a single counterexample to prove you wrong:
http://web.mit.edu/bzbarsky/www/mandelbrot-clean.html
Interesting example. Here are some results using a 7-year-old laptop (a newer PC would probably be a lot faster).
454ms - Opera 10.60
553ms - Firefox 3.6.6
661ms - Epiphany 2.30.2
992ms - Chromium 6.0.453.0
The two WebKit browsers were the slowest, while the Presto browser was fastest. It's not always so, of course.
I would prefer a horny Naiad, but that's just me.
I bring one with me...
Toyota tells you where to put your floor mats, you know, if you want to stop accelerating.
Yeah, but only the goatse guy can fit them in...
When you are caught break a regular law (speeding, larceny, etc.), you can expect to be punished with a fine or worse.
If you manage to break any of the Laws of Thermodynamics, you can expect to be lauded, copied, co-author a stream of high-impact papers, get offered some cushy sinecures, and eventually receive a Nobel prize.
The far likelier outcome, of course, is to be given an Ignobel prize, for a fruitless and ill-conceived waste of effort. I suspect the UK government can look forward to at least an honorable mention at the next Ig award ceremonies.
FYI, on my system the opera:about page shows it as version "10.60 internal", but its browser identification is:
"Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux i686; U; en) Presto/2.6.30 Version/10.60"
which could be construed as meaning either version 9.80 or version 10.60.
First off, who are these scientist? are they respectable or creditable noble prize winners or some college intern doing a year in industry?
secondly what is there back-ground, I currently took over someones position for electronic engineer only to find my predecessors area was ASTRO PHYSICS
One problem is spelling, another is grammar. Using them properly can improve communication. It's not too late; here are some hints for you.
1. Use plurals where needed: "these scientists" for example.
2. Use a capital letter to start a sentence (except in a tiny number of very special cases).
3. Use a period to finish a sentence (unless a question mark or exclamation mark is called for instead).
4. Don't unnecessarily hyphenate words such as "background".
5. You probably meant "credible", not "creditable".
6. You probably meant "Nobel", not "noble".
7. Learn the difference between "there" and "their" (and "they're", just in case).
8. Use apostrophes where appropriate, such as in "someone's position", or "predecessor's area".
9. Please try to use "it's" and "its" correctly.
10. Learn the difference between "your" and "you're".
Sorry, but your post passed the threshold that triggers my inner grammar bolshevik. I'll be back to normal soon.
Please tell me more about this "stealing from the public domain" bit
People probably refer to the repeated retroactive extension of copyright for works still in copyright. Calling this stealing is questionable (though morally clear enough).
Actual stealing from the public domain has taken place in the European Union. Some works which had been in the public domain for years became copyright-protected works again. Here's how they did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_harmonising_the_term_of_copyright_protection#Copyright_restoration
Now, that's stealing from the public domain, without any question.
My original degree was done in the days of hand-written pages being hammered in on an old typewriter. But there's no need to frighten the youngsters. I returned to university in mid-career for additional degrees.
I did my MSc thesis in Word, several versions ago. It was painful in the extreme, especially the deficient equation handling: no way to search for an equation element, or to search & replace across equations to rename a variable. It was also appallingly awkward for handling citations and cross-references - it's OK for a handful, but sucks when you've got hundreds (click-click-scroll-scroll-click-etc.). If you define some decent styles and apply them consistently, then basic text layout and formatting was OK, which was about its only redeeming feature. But then there were Word's fuck-ups in formatting or file corruption, which I defended against by changing the file name every time I edited the thing.
Older and wiser, my subsequent PhD thesis was done in LaTeX, also some years back. It required adding a few simple macros for my particular purposes and fiddling a bit with some page layout parameters (so figures & tables would be placed sensibly), but these then applied through the whole document. Equations were correct and could be searched, cross-referencing was trivially easy, and several hundred citations were a doddle. The joys of working in a text editor also cannot be ignored. As a result, I could concentrate on the content of the thesis, without fighting against the tool being used.
We are compelled to use Word for certain collaborative documents at work, but if a PDF is sufficient, I nearly always produce it in LaTeX - the easier faster way. Also, some conferences and journals require that manuscripts be submitted in LaTeX, and usually provide a suitable template. This is especially true in fields where equations are extensively used.
Which category did they place www.sexlondon.co.uk in?
Hulu remains utterly broken. Apparently, even if you offer to pay their $9.95 (or whatever), it still won't work in most of the world. They won't even show you the spamvert ads.
In what world do any women hit a better than 60% logical statement rate?
In this world, there are very few people who approach 60% logical statements even on a good day. The average is much lower. We may be quite logical for work-related stuff (bunch of PhD guys & gals doing R&D), but not socially. Excessive use of logic in social issues probably hampers reproductive success...