...that can be stretched to align properly.... Any graphics whizzes out there that can expand on this?
There's a free program -- autostitch.exe -- that does a superb job of combining images into a panorama. It's a "demo" but is very suitable for your map-scanning application.
To generate a panorama image, the camera (lens, actually) is kept at one position and panned left/right/up/down to create multiple overlapping images that fully cover the scene. I've combined up to 154 JPGs into a single panorama. It's all automatic, given these considerations: (1) all input images are placed in one folder, (2) at least 1/3rd of each image is overlapped with left/right/above/below images, (3) the camera is kept in portrait-only or landscape-only orientation for all shots, and (4) select Edit/Options setting before you open the folder of input images. Re (4), Options: keep the defaults except for Output Size/Percentage and System Memory. Adjust those to suit your requirements.
But you aren't creating a panorama. You want to stitch map images together. In this case, keep the camera exactly perpendicular to the (glass-covered) map, and move the map in relatively equal increments to achieve sufficient overlap. I suggest about 50% overlap in each direction, meaning that every spot should appear in at least two images horizontally and two vertically.
You will be amazed at the complete absence of any stitching artifacts -- you likely won't notice any at all (assuming adequate overlap). Autostitch automatically determines "adjacency" of images. This means that it makes absolutely no difference in what order or sequence the images are shot, or numbered and named in the folder. It also takes care of slight differences in camera rotation, perspective, amount of zoom, color and light levels without generating visible artifacts! As I say, amazing.
Download th zip, which has test images of a mountain scene and run it with the defaults. The output file is named pano.jpg and located in the input folder.
Security Level 4 provides the highest level of security.
At this security level, the physical security mechanisms provide a complete envelope of protection around the cryptographic module with the intent of detecting and responding to all unauthorized attempts at physical access.
Penetration of the cryptographic module enclosure from any direction has a very high probability of being detected, resulting in the immediate zeroization of all plaintext CSPs.
Security Level 4 cryptographic modules are useful for operation in physically unprotected environments. Security Level 4 also protects a cryptographic module against a security compromise due to environmental conditions or fluctuations outside of the module's normal operating ranges for voltage and temperature. Intentional excursions beyond the normal operating ranges may be used by an attacker to thwart a cryptographic module's defenses. A cryptographic module is required to either include special environmental protection features designed to detect fluctuations and zeroize CSPs, or to undergo rigorous environmental failure testing to provide a reasonable assurance that the module will not be affected by fluctuations outside of the normal operating range in a manner that can compromise the security of the module.
To be fair, the "Mike & Ike" claim was made by the kid. And he might be lying.
"He might be lying." Might not be. Sometimes you cannot prove that you are not guilty. In this case, the photo quality might be so poor that the candy indeed looks like an illegal drug.
Can you prove that you have never committed murder?
No. You cannot prove it. To do so you would have to account for every brief moment of your life which offered the possibility of killing someone. You could throw a rock off a bridge. Stab a stranger on a dark street. And so on. To prove that you are not guilty of murder you can be required, at least, to provide a solid alibi for every moment of your adult life.
"He might be lying" implies that the mere possibility that you could have committed a crime is sufficient enough to deal with you as if you have committed a crime. And if you can prove otherwise "I was here in your court, your honor" then the date could be changed. And so on, ad infinitum. If that's the principle, then the prosecution does not even have to specify any particulars of a crime.
That's why the burden of proof must lie on the accuser. IOW, the presumption of innocence must be a fundamental principle of justice.
Now I don't claim that you disagree with the presumption of innocence principle. But whether the kid is or isn't lying is simply not significant. It has no standing in how those who wield power should judge or treat him. It nothing more than an opinion that has nothing to do with any material fact.
Playboy interview of James Cameron:
PLAYBOY: How much do you get into celebrating your movie heroine's hotness?
CAMERON: Right from the beginning I said, "She's got to have tits," even though that makes no sense because her race, the Na'vi, aren't placental mammals.
What's Running is easy to use and provides lots of info on Processes, services, IP connections, modules, drivers, plus associated file locations, memory use, and other bits. http://www.whatsrunning.net/main.aspx/
The energy of a carbon bond is a few electron volts. IOW, that much energy is needed to cause a chemical change in the molecule.
The energy of a 2GHz cell-phone photon is about 0.00001 eV. Cell-phone photons cannot cause a chemical change.
Here's the QM version in more detail http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/archive/valberg_bsw.pdf:
"A repeatable, explicit, and predictive mechanism capable of producing biologically significant responses (modulation dependent or not) from low-level RF fields has not been found." You can accept quantum mechanics as a valid standard, or you can base your understanding upon who provided the funding.
The Navy shore VLF/LF transmitter facilities transmit a 50 baud submarine command and control broadcast which is the backbone of the submarine broadcast system.
It would be impossible to go through the atmosphere at orbital speed. Especially at low altitude. When an object in orbit enters the upper atmosphere it's going about Mach 25. Hence the burn.
If it were completely launched into orbit from a low altitude gun, the velocity would have to be much greater than orbital to account for the horrendous air resistance -- simply not possible.
I recall that of the 8-plus minutes the shuttle needs to reach orbit only about 2 minutes are in the atmosphere.
This means that while God might know it to be logically consistent, you can't say it *is* logically consistent since there is no procedure to verify this. Not even in infinite time. So nobody will ever know for sure, no matter how far in the future.
How could "God" know something to be true if there was no way to know it?
Reminds me of Catholic-school catechism tales of the Holy Trinity "mystery:" There is one God who is three Gods. Believe that and you're on your way to believing just about anything.
If the pulsars under observation are, say, 100-1000 light years apart, then the time necessary to notice a gravitational wave perturbation would seem to be on the order of 100-1000 years, respectively.
IOW, because gravitational waves travel at light speed (general theory of relativity), then a "stretch and squeeze" at one pulsar would reach the more distant pulsar many years later. The observed delay is of course a function of the distance between the pulsars, the angle of the wave and the angle of them to earth.
OTOH, a gravitational wave train with a wavelength much shorter the the distance between the pulsars could also be observed if a lot of pulsars were involved -- and if the observation period was at least one cycle. The 10^-9 frequency mentioned equates to a 31.7 year period.
If the wire is moving perpendicular to the field in such a way that the wire 'sees' a constant magnetic field strength (in theory), there will be no voltage.
No, not the strength per se. If a moving wire crosses lines of [constant or varying] magnetic flux, a voltage is induced in it.
Example: imagine a large circular magnet with a narrow slot that forms a pair of parallel poles. The fiend strength in the central region of the poles is essentially constant (and perpendicular to the plane of the poles). If you move a wire through the slot it will cut through the flux lines. Consequently a voltage is induced in it.
Indeed, in the central area the field strength is not only more constant, it is also the strongest, and the induced voltage will be highest (assuming constant wire speed).
"...computerized systems monitor 3 billion messages per day"
"It takes an average of 150 milliseconds for a message to be scanned by the antivirus engines..."
A little arithmetic: 3E9 * 0.150/(60*60*24) = 5200 messages being processed at any given time.
I take it that there must be more than 5200 processors at work -- on average.
Looking at it another way, 119 - 110.5 = 8.5, which is the reduction of the exponent, giving 2^8.5 = 362. So knocking off 8.5 bits reduces the amount of time+effort by that ratio.
"Picosecond" is the assumed amount of time it takes for one attempt here, which I assume is reasonable given a massively-parallel attack machine.
Feathers are carbohydrates, meaning they are carbon structures with hydrogen and a small portion of oxygen. The Carbonization process cooks off the hydrogen and oxygen, leaving the carbon structure. The hydrogen combines with oxygen to form H20, which is certainly exothermic. My guess is that it produces more heat energy that was consumed to bring it up to carbonization temperature in the first place.
So little or no energy is wasted -- unlike as with solar cells that take 5-10 years to generate as much energy as was used to make them.
"Crew module skin expands while in orbit due to 14.7 psi internal pressure; flight deck floor deflection may also contribute to the relative movement between the console's dash and the CM window area."
Since the shuttle will obviously handle a 14.7 psi differential pressure, why don't they pump it up to 14.7 plus atmospheric (also about 14.7). That should expand the skin away from the panel.
Herschel views in far infrared -- 70 to 160 um (micrometers) in TFA example. Here's a Hubble M51 shot in visible light which is sub-micron wavelength. The shorter wavelength permits greater resolution for a given mirror size.
Just the opposite. "Hubble Constant" generally refers to Ho, which is the current rate of expansion.
After the Big Bang, mutual gravitation of mass in the Universe slowed the rate such that expansion went at about t^(2/3) -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations for the scale factor (rate of change of expansion) in a matter-dominated universe.
Einstein's General Relativity says that space contains energy -- called dark energy or vacuum energy, which has the effect of causing inflation. After about 10 billion years of expansion, the amount of dark energy became greater than the total amount of mass of normal and dark matter (which does not change). Now it's about 70+% of the total mass. Consequently the rate of expansion has increased to become exponential. IOW, the scale factor is now going as e^t.
In any event, the Hubble "constant" is a measure of how fast the Universe is expanding. This rate has never been constant when considered over a period of, say, a billion years. It is slowly changing. Currently -- and forever more -- the Hubble parameter is increasing due to the exponential rate of creation of new space, ie, dark energy.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a free program -- autostitch.exe -- that does a superb job of combining images into a panorama. It's a "demo" but is very suitable for your map-scanning application.
To generate a panorama image, the camera (lens, actually) is kept at one position and panned left/right/up/down to create multiple overlapping images that fully cover the scene. I've combined up to 154 JPGs into a single panorama. It's all automatic, given these considerations: (1) all input images are placed in one folder, (2) at least 1/3rd of each image is overlapped with left/right/above/below images, (3) the camera is kept in portrait-only or landscape-only orientation for all shots, and (4) select Edit/Options setting before you open the folder of input images. Re (4), Options: keep the defaults except for Output Size/Percentage and System Memory. Adjust those to suit your requirements.
But you aren't creating a panorama. You want to stitch map images together. In this case, keep the camera exactly perpendicular to the (glass-covered) map, and move the map in relatively equal increments to achieve sufficient overlap. I suggest about 50% overlap in each direction, meaning that every spot should appear in at least two images horizontally and two vertically.
You will be amazed at the complete absence of any stitching artifacts -- you likely won't notice any at all (assuming adequate overlap). Autostitch automatically determines "adjacency" of images. This means that it makes absolutely no difference in what order or sequence the images are shot, or numbered and named in the folder. It also takes care of slight differences in camera rotation, perspective, amount of zoom, color and light levels without generating visible artifacts! As I say, amazing.
Download th zip, which has test images of a mountain scene and run it with the defaults. The output file is named pano.jpg and located in the input folder.
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,63928-order,1-page,1-c,alldownloads/description.html/
Level 4
Security Level 4 provides the highest level of security.
At this security level, the physical security mechanisms provide a complete envelope of protection around the cryptographic module with the intent of detecting and responding to all unauthorized attempts at physical access.
Penetration of the cryptographic module enclosure from any direction has a very high probability of being detected, resulting in the immediate zeroization of all plaintext CSPs.
Security Level 4 cryptographic modules are useful for operation in physically unprotected environments. Security Level 4 also protects a cryptographic module against a security compromise due to environmental conditions or fluctuations outside of the module's normal operating ranges for voltage and temperature. Intentional excursions beyond the normal operating ranges may be used by an attacker to thwart a cryptographic module's defenses. A cryptographic module is required to either include special environmental protection features designed to detect fluctuations and zeroize CSPs, or to undergo rigorous environmental failure testing to provide a reasonable assurance that the module will not be affected by fluctuations outside of the normal operating range in a manner that can compromise the security of the module.
"He might be lying." Might not be. Sometimes you cannot prove that you are not guilty. In this case, the photo quality might be so poor that the candy indeed looks like an illegal drug.
Can you prove that you have never committed murder?
No. You cannot prove it. To do so you would have to account for every brief moment of your life which offered the possibility of killing someone. You could throw a rock off a bridge. Stab a stranger on a dark street. And so on. To prove that you are not guilty of murder you can be required, at least, to provide a solid alibi for every moment of your adult life.
"He might be lying" implies that the mere possibility that you could have committed a crime is sufficient enough to deal with you as if you have committed a crime. And if you can prove otherwise "I was here in your court, your honor" then the date could be changed. And so on, ad infinitum. If that's the principle, then the prosecution does not even have to specify any particulars of a crime.
That's why the burden of proof must lie on the accuser. IOW, the presumption of innocence must be a fundamental principle of justice.
Now I don't claim that you disagree with the presumption of innocence principle. But whether the kid is or isn't lying is simply not significant. It has no standing in how those who wield power should judge or treat him. It nothing more than an opinion that has nothing to do with any material fact.
Playboy interview of James Cameron:
PLAYBOY: How much do you get into celebrating your movie heroine's hotness?
CAMERON: Right from the beginning I said, "She's got to have tits," even though that makes no sense because her race, the Na'vi, aren't placental mammals.
No built-in USB port! Plus no SD card reader. In addition to the no built-in camera and no flv support.
What's Running is easy to use and provides lots of info on Processes, services, IP connections, modules, drivers, plus associated file locations, memory use, and other bits.
http://www.whatsrunning.net/main.aspx/
This comment is bogus.
The energy of a carbon bond is a few electron volts. IOW, that much energy is needed to cause a chemical change in the molecule.
The energy of a 2GHz cell-phone photon is about 0.00001 eV. Cell-phone photons cannot cause a chemical change.
Here's the QM version in more detail http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/archive/valberg_bsw.pdf:
"A repeatable, explicit, and predictive mechanism capable of producing biologically significant responses (modulation dependent or not) from low-level RF fields has not been found." You can accept quantum mechanics as a valid standard, or you can base your understanding upon who provided the funding.
The Navy shore VLF/LF transmitter facilities transmit a 50 baud submarine command and control broadcast which is the backbone of the submarine broadcast system.
More at http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/scmp/part07.htm
It would be impossible to go through the atmosphere at orbital speed. Especially at low altitude. When an object in orbit enters the upper atmosphere it's going about Mach 25. Hence the burn.
If it were completely launched into orbit from a low altitude gun, the velocity would have to be much greater than orbital to account for the horrendous air resistance -- simply not possible.
I recall that of the 8-plus minutes the shuttle needs to reach orbit only about 2 minutes are in the atmosphere.
This means that while God might know it to be logically consistent, you can't say it *is* logically consistent since there is no procedure to verify this. Not even in infinite time. So nobody will ever know for sure, no matter how far in the future.
How could "God" know something to be true if there was no way to know it?
Reminds me of Catholic-school catechism tales of the Holy Trinity "mystery:" There is one God who is three Gods. Believe that and you're on your way to believing just about anything.
If the pulsars under observation are, say, 100-1000 light years apart, then the time necessary to notice a gravitational wave perturbation would seem to be on the order of 100-1000 years, respectively.
IOW, because gravitational waves travel at light speed (general theory of relativity), then a "stretch and squeeze" at one pulsar would reach the more distant pulsar many years later. The observed delay is of course a function of the distance between the pulsars, the angle of the wave and the angle of them to earth.
OTOH, a gravitational wave train with a wavelength much shorter the the distance between the pulsars could also be observed if a lot of pulsars were involved -- and if the observation period was at least one cycle. The 10^-9 frequency mentioned equates to a 31.7 year period.
No, not the strength per se. If a moving wire crosses lines of [constant or varying] magnetic flux, a voltage is induced in it.
Example: imagine a large circular magnet with a narrow slot that forms a pair of parallel poles. The fiend strength in the central region of the poles is essentially constant (and perpendicular to the plane of the poles). If you move a wire through the slot it will cut through the flux lines. Consequently a voltage is induced in it.
Indeed, in the central area the field strength is not only more constant, it is also the strongest, and the induced voltage will be highest (assuming constant wire speed).
"I'd be winning to wager that" most users would be happy if MS Office was never shipped.
In that regard I used PC Decrapifier to nuke the "trial" version of Office. There have been no side effects subsequent to its demise.
"Methylphenidate"
I've been taking it for fifteen years and still didn't recognize the chemical name. Too many syllables, too little time...
We are to assume image stabilization works both ways.
2^30 = 1,073,741,824
Every single person...
And what about married persons?
"The expected thrust is 5 newtons for 200 kW of power..." (posted above)
An apple weighs about a Newton, which is 0.225 pounds. So 5 newtons is a bit more than a pound of thrust.
200 KW is about 268 horsepower.
"...computerized systems monitor 3 billion messages per day"
/(60*60*24) = 5200 messages being processed at any given time.
"It takes an average of 150 milliseconds for a message to be scanned by the antivirus engines..."
A little arithmetic: 3E9 * 0.150
I take it that there must be more than 5200 processors at work -- on average.
Google says:
2.10607966 × 10^13 millenia -- which equals about 21,000,000 billion years
With the new attack the figure is 2^110.5 trys, which is
(2^110.5) picoseconds = 5.81727815 × 10^10 millenia
a mere 58,000 billion years.
Looking at it another way, 119 - 110.5 = 8.5, which is the reduction of the exponent, giving 2^8.5 = 362. So knocking off 8.5 bits reduces the amount of time+effort by that ratio.
"Picosecond" is the assumed amount of time it takes for one attempt here, which I assume is reasonable given a massively-parallel attack machine.
Still, 58 trillion years...
Feathers are carbohydrates, meaning they are carbon structures with hydrogen and a small portion of oxygen. The Carbonization process cooks off the hydrogen and oxygen, leaving the carbon structure. The hydrogen combines with oxygen to form H20, which is certainly exothermic. My guess is that it produces more heat energy that was consumed to bring it up to carbonization temperature in the first place.
So little or no energy is wasted -- unlike as with solar cells that take 5-10 years to generate as much energy as was used to make them.
Since the shuttle will obviously handle a 14.7 psi differential pressure, why don't they pump it up to 14.7 plus atmospheric (also about 14.7). That should expand the skin away from the panel.
Herschel views in far infrared -- 70 to 160 um (micrometers) in TFA example. Here's a Hubble M51 shot in visible light which is sub-micron wavelength. The shorter wavelength permits greater resolution for a given mirror size.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080614.html
You are correct. Currently the scale factor, a(t), goes as e^kt. The Hubble parameter can be defined defined H(t) = (da/dt)/a.
Therefore we take the derivative of e^kt and get k*e^kt. Substituting, H(t) = k * e^kt / e^kt = k.
Thus H(t) is constant in an exponentially expanding universe.
Just the opposite. "Hubble Constant" generally refers to Ho, which is the current rate of expansion.
After the Big Bang, mutual gravitation of mass in the Universe slowed the rate such that expansion went at about t^(2/3) -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations for the scale factor (rate of change of expansion) in a matter-dominated universe.
Einstein's General Relativity says that space contains energy -- called dark energy or vacuum energy, which has the effect of causing inflation. After about 10 billion years of expansion, the amount of dark energy became greater than the total amount of mass of normal and dark matter (which does not change). Now it's about 70+% of the total mass. Consequently the rate of expansion has increased to become exponential. IOW, the scale factor is now going as e^t.
In any event, the Hubble "constant" is a measure of how fast the Universe is expanding. This rate has never been constant when considered over a period of, say, a billion years. It is slowly changing. Currently -- and forever more -- the Hubble parameter is increasing due to the exponential rate of creation of new space, ie, dark energy.