I saw it as a snapshot of a fatally wounded system, much like a headless chicken. Sure, most of the signs of life were still going on, but it was slowly dying. When something wore out, nobody would be able to fix it or build a new one. Civilization would gradually die out, humanity would once more become hunter-gatherers and history would repeat itself.
What does this say about the state of the financial industry? Given the problems HFT seems to have caused over the last few years, shouldn't more light be shined into the dark corners of how it works?
Pff. I’m still fiddling with gender changers, null modems, 9/15 pin changers, RS232 and RJ45 cables... oh, and this ancient boxy thing called a 1747-PIC...
Miles Tinker, in his landmark work, Legibility of Print, performed scientific studies on the readability of all-capital print. His findings were as follows:
All-capital print greatly retards speed of reading in comparison with lower-case type. Also, most readers judge all capitals to be less legible. Faster reading of the lower-case print is due to the characteristic word forms furnished by this type. This permits reading by word units, while all capitals tend to be read letter by letter. Furthermore, since all-capital printing takes at least one-third more space than lower case, more fixation pauses are required for reading the same amount of material. The use of all capitals should be dispensed with in every printing situation.
Other critics are of the opinion that all caps letters in text are often “too tightly packed against each other”.
in a way that wouldn't have been more convenient and practical to do via http and various social networking sites (facebook/myspace)
If you’re implying that it is more convenient and practical to promote and distribute free music via some other method, why were/are so many people using LimeWire/FrostWire?
We’ve got a/. summary which refers to a notice which refers to a court order... I’d think somewhere along the line of referrals they could have converted it into sentence-case to make it easier to read.
There are cases where you would downsample.... I just can't see it working with high-res pixel originals.
You just wouldn’t be able to. High-res raster-based images would have to be downsampled (once) in software before even attempting to display them on the screen, just as they would be for display on a conventional standard-res display. It should still be slightly better than a standard-res display for high-res raster originals, but the main advantage would come when rendering vector based images or text.
The whole point was that you can’t use the high-res raster original. Trying to buffer high-res raster images in video memory would be prohibitively expensive in terms of space and transfer requirements. For that reason, images would need to be copied to video memory at some reasonable DPI for display. Yes, you’re throwing away information... but it should still be better quality than standard-res displays. It’s a small win, but the main advantage of the design would be laser-quality text and vector-based images. The improvement in raster-based images would be slight, but that’s to be expected somewhat: most images on the Web are stored at very low DPI already. Any high-res display is already going to have to upsample the raster images to make them large enough.
If vectorization were a useful compression algorithm, we'd see it used in photo and video compression schemes.
For high-res raster-based images, I was sort of picturing an extremely aggressive JPEG compression that basically converts the image into small 16x16 blocks of pixels. It looks terrible when they’re large enough to see, but it would give a little more detail if the individual blocks were the size of a single pixel in a standard-res display.
It would take much more space than a single 24-bit RGB value for each “pixel”, yes, but it should still take much less space than trying to store RGB values for every sub-pixel in the high-resolution display.
No, you wouldn’t downsample. You wouldn’t have a high-res image to downsample in the first place. The whole point is to avoid storing and transferring that full-sized raster-based representation due to its unwieldy size.
You could implement different methods of up-sampling standard-res images for this sort of hi-res display, or you could send vector-based content (fonts) as vector-based shapes, giving high-res representations with minimal data transfer requirements.
So you would downsample high-res pixel images and send one vector per block?
Not necessarily one vector, but one vector-based subdrawing that would require much less data to represent than the equivalent bitmap representation would.
That would defeat the whole point of having a high-res display.
No. It would be a trade-off. You wouldn’t be able to address the subpixels in each block separately, as you can in a straight bitmap. But you could tell it to display a simple line and it would display an ultra-high resolution line with quality rivaling that of a good laser printer, and requiring only a fraction of the amount of data that would be required to display the same line in that resolution as a raster-based bitmap.
Think of it as a form of anti-aliasing: it’s for rounding off the corners. Except that instead of a solid rectangle of some shade of gray, it would be a two-colour rectangular region with a proper vector-based curve delineating the boundary between the white and black portions.
If he’s supposed to be an automotive expert, why is he speculating? Would applying the brakes fully overheat them and render them useless before bringing the car to a halt, or wouldn’t it? As I understand it, it’s moderate application of the brakes that will heat them up and cause them to fail. Applying the brakes fully should overcome the engine and bring the vehicle to a stop before the brakes heat up.
The brakes are designed to overcome the engine if you apply them fully. It’s that simple.
Now if you have some sort of regenerative braking system that creates force-feedback in the brake pedal and that locks up, preventing the brake pedal from being pressed down fully (or making it nearly impossible for the average person to do so), that is much more likely (as I see it, anyway) to cause brake failure if you’re trying to stop a runaway engine.
At some point, wouldn’t it make sense to use a vector-based format to define the contents of rectangular “pixels”? For images that were already pixel-based you could just send a simple rectangle or maybe use a gradient to smooth out the corners, but for vector-based shapes (e.g. fonts) you could get an ultra-smooth laser-print-quality rendering by sending the mathematical curve to display.
In other words, just like pixels are currently made up of red/green/blue sub-pixels, these pixels would be made up of red/green/blue sub-pixels, but more than one of each colour sub-pixel per pixel and with smarter sub-pixel rendering built into the display so that you could send it vector-based data to control the sub-pixel rendering.
The data transfer rate would be manageable for the entire display, and the individual “pixel” sub-units could manage their own block of physical pixels.
No, sometimes an odd 3rd version comes out half-cooked too. And it depends greatly on whether or not you count service packs as versions (by SP 3, Windows XP had so many of its original wrinkles ironed out that it can hardly be considered the same version).
This is really a bit over-blown, though. The actual statement from Microsoft was:
Verder werkt Microsoft uiteraard aan de volgende versie van Windows. Maar het zal nog zo’n twee jaar duren voordat ‘Windows 8’ op de markt komt. (Furthermore, Microsoft is of course working on the next version of Windows, but it will take about two years before “Windows 8” comes to the market.)
Google Translate can’t seem to make up its mind as to whether it means “another” or “about” two years. I’m guessing it’s not terribly precise. Assuming it means that the release is scheduled for October 2012 is reading a little bit too much into the statement, I think. The latter half of 2012 sounds like a safer estimate.
From the posts below it appears that the article at some point said that the release date was in October 2010 but was quickly corrected to read October 2012. If it was this October it would have to be released sometime in the next week.
Nope, this is a snob case. You can’t have my passport information because my ability to use it depends entirely on the fact that nobody else has it. However, this is because civilization has come to the conclusion that a person can be identified by the information they possess, which is moronic but I have to live within that framework.
The difference is, my passwords, bank account numbers, PIN numbers, passport info, etc. are secret. You can’t have them for any price. If I was trying to sell information, though, I’d have a problem: I’m simultaneously trying to give information away, and prevent the people I give it to from giving it to others as well. This simply does not work.
You can either keep information secret, or you can give it away. Trying to do both simultaneously doesn’t work.
And now you’re so narcissistic that you think I’m following you around. Hardly. Why on earth would I want to follow you around? I’ve read a fair percentage of the posts in this discussion and in the process I’ve come across a number of your posts (hardly difficult given the crapflood you’ve created). I felt like replying to a couple of them. I do, of course, get a notification when you reply to me, but that’s not following you around.
I’m feeding the troll, but I don’t really care.
You’re just making yourself look foolish, so feel free to stop any time. Or not.
I’m still trying to figure out why “compaction” isn’t the correct word, other than some physicist bastardized the word and it caught on.
And for what it’s worth, although “compactification” seems to be a word (it’s in the Merriam Webster Unabridged), compactify and compactifying are not.
No, “compactification” is actually a word, albeit an uncommonly used word... “compactify” and “compactifying”, on the other hand, are not (“compact” and “compacting” are the words that the summary writer should have used).
Slashdot Mirror
I’m quite familiar with the saying, but I didn’t know where it came from. Linky please?
I saw it as a snapshot of a fatally wounded system, much like a headless chicken. Sure, most of the signs of life were still going on, but it was slowly dying. When something wore out, nobody would be able to fix it or build a new one. Civilization would gradually die out, humanity would once more become hunter-gatherers and history would repeat itself.
Disregard that. High-frequency trading is legal. I must be thinking of something else.
They aren’t legal, but they do indicate that the system is broken. It’s susceptible to what amounts to a denial of service attack.
What does this say about the state of the financial industry? Given the problems HFT seems to have caused over the last few years, shouldn't more light be shined into the dark corners of how it works?
No... then they’d actually have to fix it...
http://slashdot.org/zoo.pl?op=check&uid=666
http://slashdot.org/my/comments
I’m pretty sure that protocol is still implemented at least someplace in our system, too.
Pff. I’m still fiddling with gender changers, null modems, 9/15 pin changers, RS232 and RJ45 cables... oh, and this ancient boxy thing called a 1747-PIC...
Talk to people? Like... in real life?
Wrong. All-caps makes it harder to read.
Miles Tinker, in his landmark work, Legibility of Print, performed scientific studies on the readability of all-capital print. His findings were as follows:
All-capital print greatly retards speed of reading in comparison with lower-case type. Also, most readers judge all capitals to be less legible. Faster reading of the lower-case print is due to the characteristic word forms furnished by this type. This permits reading by word units, while all capitals tend to be read letter by letter. Furthermore, since all-capital printing takes at least one-third more space than lower case, more fixation pauses are required for reading the same amount of material. The use of all capitals should be dispensed with in every printing situation.
Other critics are of the opinion that all caps letters in text are often “too tightly packed against each other”.
in a way that wouldn't have been more convenient and practical to do via http and various social networking sites (facebook/myspace)
If you’re implying that it is more convenient and practical to promote and distribute free music via some other method, why were/are so many people using LimeWire/FrostWire?
We’ve got a /. summary which refers to a notice which refers to a court order... I’d think somewhere along the line of referrals they could have converted it into sentence-case to make it easier to read.
There are cases where you would downsample. ... I just can't see it working with high-res pixel originals.
You just wouldn’t be able to. High-res raster-based images would have to be downsampled (once) in software before even attempting to display them on the screen, just as they would be for display on a conventional standard-res display. It should still be slightly better than a standard-res display for high-res raster originals, but the main advantage would come when rendering vector based images or text.
The whole point was that you can’t use the high-res raster original. Trying to buffer high-res raster images in video memory would be prohibitively expensive in terms of space and transfer requirements. For that reason, images would need to be copied to video memory at some reasonable DPI for display. Yes, you’re throwing away information... but it should still be better quality than standard-res displays. It’s a small win, but the main advantage of the design would be laser-quality text and vector-based images. The improvement in raster-based images would be slight, but that’s to be expected somewhat: most images on the Web are stored at very low DPI already. Any high-res display is already going to have to upsample the raster images to make them large enough.
If vectorization were a useful compression algorithm, we'd see it used in photo and video compression schemes.
For high-res raster-based images, I was sort of picturing an extremely aggressive JPEG compression that basically converts the image into small 16x16 blocks of pixels. It looks terrible when they’re large enough to see, but it would give a little more detail if the individual blocks were the size of a single pixel in a standard-res display.
It would take much more space than a single 24-bit RGB value for each “pixel”, yes, but it should still take much less space than trying to store RGB values for every sub-pixel in the high-resolution display.
I just noticed that you said “downsample”.
No, you wouldn’t downsample. You wouldn’t have a high-res image to downsample in the first place. The whole point is to avoid storing and transferring that full-sized raster-based representation due to its unwieldy size.
You could implement different methods of up-sampling standard-res images for this sort of hi-res display, or you could send vector-based content (fonts) as vector-based shapes, giving high-res representations with minimal data transfer requirements.
So you would downsample high-res pixel images and send one vector per block?
Not necessarily one vector, but one vector-based subdrawing that would require much less data to represent than the equivalent bitmap representation would.
That would defeat the whole point of having a high-res display.
No. It would be a trade-off. You wouldn’t be able to address the subpixels in each block separately, as you can in a straight bitmap. But you could tell it to display a simple line and it would display an ultra-high resolution line with quality rivaling that of a good laser printer, and requiring only a fraction of the amount of data that would be required to display the same line in that resolution as a raster-based bitmap.
Think of it as a form of anti-aliasing: it’s for rounding off the corners. Except that instead of a solid rectangle of some shade of gray, it would be a two-colour rectangular region with a proper vector-based curve delineating the boundary between the white and black portions.
If he’s supposed to be an automotive expert, why is he speculating? Would applying the brakes fully overheat them and render them useless before bringing the car to a halt, or wouldn’t it? As I understand it, it’s moderate application of the brakes that will heat them up and cause them to fail. Applying the brakes fully should overcome the engine and bring the vehicle to a stop before the brakes heat up.
The brakes are designed to overcome the engine if you apply them fully. It’s that simple.
Now if you have some sort of regenerative braking system that creates force-feedback in the brake pedal and that locks up, preventing the brake pedal from being pressed down fully (or making it nearly impossible for the average person to do so), that is much more likely (as I see it, anyway) to cause brake failure if you’re trying to stop a runaway engine.
At some point, wouldn’t it make sense to use a vector-based format to define the contents of rectangular “pixels”? For images that were already pixel-based you could just send a simple rectangle or maybe use a gradient to smooth out the corners, but for vector-based shapes (e.g. fonts) you could get an ultra-smooth laser-print-quality rendering by sending the mathematical curve to display.
In other words, just like pixels are currently made up of red/green/blue sub-pixels, these pixels would be made up of red/green/blue sub-pixels, but more than one of each colour sub-pixel per pixel and with smarter sub-pixel rendering built into the display so that you could send it vector-based data to control the sub-pixel rendering.
The data transfer rate would be manageable for the entire display, and the individual “pixel” sub-units could manage their own block of physical pixels.
No, sometimes an odd 3rd version comes out half-cooked too. And it depends greatly on whether or not you count service packs as versions (by SP 3, Windows XP had so many of its original wrinkles ironed out that it can hardly be considered the same version).
Actually the error was from TFA.
This is really a bit over-blown, though. The actual statement from Microsoft was:
Google Translate can’t seem to make up its mind as to whether it means “another” or “about” two years. I’m guessing it’s not terribly precise. Assuming it means that the release is scheduled for October 2012 is reading a little bit too much into the statement, I think. The latter half of 2012 sounds like a safer estimate.
From the posts below it appears that the article at some point said that the release date was in October 2010 but was quickly corrected to read October 2012. If it was this October it would have to be released sometime in the next week.
Nope, this is a snob case. You can’t have my passport information because my ability to use it depends entirely on the fact that nobody else has it. However, this is because civilization has come to the conclusion that a person can be identified by the information they possess, which is moronic but I have to live within that framework.
The difference is, my passwords, bank account numbers, PIN numbers, passport info, etc. are secret. You can’t have them for any price. If I was trying to sell information, though, I’d have a problem: I’m simultaneously trying to give information away, and prevent the people I give it to from giving it to others as well. This simply does not work.
You can either keep information secret, or you can give it away. Trying to do both simultaneously doesn’t work.
And now you’re so narcissistic that you think I’m following you around. Hardly. Why on earth would I want to follow you around? I’ve read a fair percentage of the posts in this discussion and in the process I’ve come across a number of your posts (hardly difficult given the crapflood you’ve created). I felt like replying to a couple of them. I do, of course, get a notification when you reply to me, but that’s not following you around.
I’m feeding the troll, but I don’t really care.
You’re just making yourself look foolish, so feel free to stop any time. Or not.
I’m still trying to figure out why “compaction” isn’t the correct word, other than some physicist bastardized the word and it caught on.
And for what it’s worth, although “compactification” seems to be a word (it’s in the Merriam Webster Unabridged), compactify and compactifying are not.
No, “compactification” is actually a word, albeit an uncommonly used word... “compactify” and “compactifying”, on the other hand, are not (“compact” and “compacting” are the words that the summary writer should have used).
I wondered if that was what he was driving at, but he’s too stubborn to tell me if it’s so.
If so, anyway, Fight-Club-reference fail and he may hand in his geek card on the way out.