Hell, I'd dump $1 million into that bet. You're giving 100,000-to-1 odds that Earth WON'T be hit. As in, if the asteroid misses, you pay up. And if it hits, you don't. Not that you'd be able to anyway.
I should really make you trolls do some cute tricks before I feed you.
I loaded it up into IDL, and sure enough, the damn thing works. Creepy. For those of you out there with a copy of IDL handy, try the following commands:
image = READ_PNG(Dialog_Pickfile(Filter="*.png")) TV, (image AND 3)*85
I really don't know what you're talking about. I too have a Samsung SyncMaster 191T. It's positively dreadful for gaming. The motion blur (if that's what you meant by ghosting) is almost unbearable, especially when changing from one bold color to another (blue to yellow for example). Smoothly scrolling down a text-laden webpage is a visual chore as well.
Although I'll agree that ghosting in the traditional sense (fuzziness of the image/a sort of duplicate image) is absent given the digital interface, the motion blur caused by the terrible response time is just unacceptable. I highly doubt Samsung's claim of 25ms, having used this monitor for two years now. I seem to recall hearing a number closer to 40ms (although it could be that 25ms is 1/40sec).
Why do I still have it on my desk if I seem to loathe it so much? It's more than adequate for day-to-day use, it doesn't hurt my eyes, and the amount of desk space reclaimed after ditching my 19" CRT more than makes up for the other annoyances.
And if we were to consider the possiblity of up to every gene interacting with each other, that would give us 20000!, or roughly 1.819e+77337 possibilities. (surprisingly enough, that didn't crash the windows calculator program, although it did take a second or two even on an A64)
How many cores will there be on a single chip a decade from now? About 64-128 if Moore's law holds (remember, it's the number of transistors, not the speed). I highly doubt we'll see more than 4-8 cores on desktop computers, even given a whole decade. There will come a point where adding more cores won't be economical or the sensible answer for more computing power, just as making chips faster isn't the answer right now. The paradigm will then shift towards either making the individual cores smaller in order to pack more on a single chip and/or making each individual core run faster and cooler. Nanotechnology is positioning itself as the answer ten years from now, you just can't see it. Putting any more than 4 cores in the same form factor as today's CPUs will absolutely require this kind of technology.
Yeah, I'd thought about that argument when I started planning to put together a new computer. Let's say a nearly-top-of-the-line (not the FX-53, maybe a 3800+) system costs $2000, but a mid-range system (3000+) costs $1000. So you buy the mid-range system now, and a year from now, that $2000 machine becomes $1000. So you still end up spending $2000. If you buy whole PCs, sure, you get an extra one. But if you're upgrading on a budget, it just makes sense to spend as much as you can afford.
I think that's why the parent poster put combinations in quotation marks, because they aren't really combinations on the source end, just "combinations" on the detector end. For some weird reason, the word for a one-dimensional output signal from multidimensional input escapes me right now.
From their website: "Sunnybrook's new High Dynamic Range displays allow viewers to experience lifelike images that are both 30 times brighter and 10 times darker than a normal display."
This is exactly what I've been waiting for! Up until now, I haven't found a monitor capable of producing a dark enough black to really show off Doom 3 in all its glory.
I'm getting ready to build a new PC and I've decided on the Athlon64 (it was such a difficult decision... not.). It looks like the mobile chips are basically identical to their desktop brethren except that they don't put out as much heat nor do they have integrated heat spreaders. I really like the fact that they put out less power, perform identically (I think), and only cost a few dollars more.
Does anyone know if you can take a mobile A64 and just plop it in a desktop motherboard (for regular A64s) and have it just work? Or does the BIOS have to be aware of the fact that it's a mobile proc? Will the heatsinks designed for the desktop versions work with a mobile version? Does an A64 really require a 400W+ power supply as many sites suggest?
Not true. His users wanted (not needed!) those features, and did not specifically define them before the project started. If the users are constantly changing their minds about what they want, then they'll have to settle for whatever basic level of functionality was agreed upon in the development contract. Anything more will have to be added after the initial project is completed, and at an appropriate additional cost.
Users rarely know what they want, so only rarely is a program truly designed well.
Then by that logic, it's the fault of the automotive industry for not making my car compatible with leaded gasoline.
He bought a chess game that would run on his computer ten years ago. Ten years! You do realize that ten years ago we were all running 16-bit versions of Mosaic or Netscape 1.0, and that Windows 3.11 on a Pentium 66 was still king, right? Should all modern websites be completely backwards compatible with these ancient browsers? If he wants to run his old chess game, he can still run it on his old computer, unless it stopped working of course.
My only gripe about backwards compatibilty is with Nikon. Their latest autofocus cameras (those made since 2000 or so that aren't top- or next-to-top-of-the-line) can't even do basic metering with a manual focus lens attached, something that all of their older (pre-2000) autofocus cameras could do.
Machine learning might be extremely useful in the development of plugins and extensions. Take Leech for example. It'll download all files with user-specified file extensions that are linked to on a given page. Some photo galleries (and no, I'm not just talking about pr0n here) don't link directly to JPEGs and the like, but instead link to a page that has the JPEG somewhere on it. I know that Photoshop CS does this, because I'm making a gallery of travel photos and it's annoying the hell out of me. With all of the different software packages used to put the galleries together (including CS), it would be a real pain to try and code for each and every implementation and version of a web gallery. If users could train it, or if it came pre-trained with only refinements necessary, that would be extremely useful. Machine learning could also be learned to train other extensions like AdBlock and the like.
Apple will be including a "Private Browsing" feature in Safari when Tiger comes out (not sure if Safari currently has that). For those that don't know what it is, you can tell Safari to not write anything to the history or the location bar for as long as the feature is turned on. If Firefox could be trained by the user to do this, and do it automatically (with a notification icon in the status bar similar to the junk mail icon in mozilla mail & thunderbird), that would be great.
Dashboard looks like a pretty sweet application. With each successive release, Mac OS X becomes an even more impressive desktop OS. They keep throwing stuff in it that boosts productivity (Expose, Dashboard, Automator, etc) while still maintaining its slick appearance. With all these productivity enhancements, sometimes I have to wonder why they don't put together a less-expensive G5 tower (i.e., less than $1500, let alone $2000 without a monitor) and target the business market. Even at $2000+/system, if Apple were to successfully convince just a few large companies to run small pilot programs to study productivity gains, they could make huge inroads into the business computing market. Between Tiger, the new 30" cinema displays, and a dual 2.5GHz G5, Apple really makes me wish I weren't a poor college student.:(
I would love it if there was some feature that embedded a URL in EXIF format in images, or something similar. Basically, it would work like this. You visit a website and download an image or two. Mozilla/Firefox/Whatever inserts the URL of the image into the EXIF data in the image header. That way, when you're trying to remember where you got something later on, you've got it. It would be nice if wget implemented this too.
Re:As an ex-commercial photographer
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 1
1. Store data in RAW format. (Thanks to Sigma for pushing this.) This get rid of the useless "low/medium/high quality" switch on the camera. There goes one pointless switch.
On a decent digital camera, you've got the option for storing the images as a RAW file. I personally use RAW+Basic JPEG on my D70 because my old 1.2GHz Athlon takes forever to process the RAW files, and it's nice to have previews. Plus, if you're just shooting candid shots on a whim, why bother storing a 10MB file each, when a 1MB JPEG would do the job just fine for most people?
2. Store all data at the highest resolution. Get rid of the "small/medium/large" switch. If I needed to store more pictures on my card, I would have bought a higher-capacity CF drive. I can get 4GB models now. That should be enough to store hundreds of pics. Another pointless switch, gone...
Have you looked at the price of a 4GB CF card? They're about $1200 for a fast one, or about $500 for a slow one. If you're gonna be shooting a lot of RAW files, you're gonna want the fast one. I just spent $1300 on my Nikon D70, I'd rather not spend almost as much again on a single memory card.
3. Get rid of in-camera white-balance setting, and do this on the computer or laptop or even palmtop to simplify the camera and force the complexity outside. (Again, thanks to Sigma) This can be done on the computer if needed with the RAW file. Most amateur users have NO idea what the hell white-balance means anyways. A third pointless switch gone..
If you know the lighting condition's you're working under, why not just have it adjusted for right away? It's not that complex to do on camera. Just because most amateur users don't know what it means doesn't mean we should get rid of it. What they SHOULD do is allow for white balance correction of JPEG images from the camera.
4. Get rid of the Priority switches- Aperture, Shutter, Etc.. Instead, allow the user to adjust the Aperture & Shutter on a lens ring. The ring can also have a setting for Auto. This can also be done for focusing with a Focusing ring. There- 3 buttons eliminated just like that.
And bring photography back into the 1970's. Every modern film camera (SLR types anyway) have P,S,A,M priority settings on a switch (for Nikon, Canon has its equivalents). You can adjust apertures to 1/3 stop using the camera, something you can't do on an aperture ring. I know your FM2 ONLY has the manual setting, but some of us use aperture and shutter priority modes quite a bit.
5. Get rid of on-camera flashes settings (Keep the wimpy on-camera flash if you must, but leave it on Auto always, and auto-disable when external flash is connected) Pro photographers would have an external flash anyways, and any flash settings can be made on that. Another switch, gone...
Even pro photographers find the small on-camera flashes to be pretty handy, that's why Kodak chose the Nikon N80 body as the base for their DCS14n camera - solely because it had a small on-camera flash. And you can often control the external flashes to some degree using the on-camera settings.
There's so many useless switches on a modern Digital SLR that can be completely thrown away and still provide all the functionality anyone would want.
Useless for you, perhaps. But these features are on every professional-level digital camera because, surprise, professionals find them to be useful. I'd like it if they just got rid of the idiot "program" modes on the D70, like "sports" and "portrait" and such. People that are investing $1000+ on a digital camera should take the time to learn some basic principles of photography (like fast shutter speeds for sports, etc).
Some people may want all these useless features.. for them the camera vendors can have their own special overfeatured model. I would rather have one that's simple and obvious...
Once again, they're only useless for you. They aren't overfeatured
No way in hell I'd believe that someone posing as "Shirley" was anything less than 50 years old. More like Shirley1950. I haven't met anyone near my age (21) named Shirley, and I've met a ton of people. At least use Jenny or Jessica or something more modern.
Humans have a visual range of roughly 400-700nm. 800nm is considered to be near infra-red (sometimes called photo infra-red). Nobody ever said photonics had to happen in the visibile range. Ultraviolet radiation ranges between 1-400nm and is currently used for most lithography.
It needs better memory management too, especially with regard to images. There's no reason that loading a page with 15+ decent-sized (or 10+ larger) JPEGs should mess everything up, especially in other browsing windows. Mozilla just can't handle fusker and picleecher very well (both of which do have non-porn uses, believe it or not), or pages made by people who think that a 150k jpeg resized to 60x90 by the browser is ok to use as a thumbnail (and then putting 20-30 of them on a page).
But if you've got 5-10 sites open (in tabs or in seperate windows) and all of the sudden your browser crashes, you didn't mean to close your browser then, did you? I'd like to know if all of the session saving plugins can cope with mozilla/firefox crashing. Having it restore everything when you accidentally closed a window with a ton of tabs is nice, but being able to minimize the effects of a crash on your workflow would be even better.
As much of the internet is finding out thanks to the recent release of the 37-minute Paris Hilton video, WMV9 is a complete bitch to try and crack. It encrypts the actual video stream with public/private key encryption, kind of like PGP. Sadly, it looks like Microsoft actually had a clue (from the perspective of DRM at least) when they put Windows Media 9 together.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, I'd dump $1 million into that bet. You're giving 100,000-to-1 odds that Earth WON'T be hit. As in, if the asteroid misses, you pay up. And if it hits, you don't. Not that you'd be able to anyway.
I should really make you trolls do some cute tricks before I feed you.
I loaded it up into IDL, and sure enough, the damn thing works. Creepy. For those of you out there with a copy of IDL handy, try the following commands:
image = READ_PNG(Dialog_Pickfile(Filter="*.png"))
TV, (image AND 3)*85
I really don't know what you're talking about. I too have a Samsung SyncMaster 191T. It's positively dreadful for gaming. The motion blur (if that's what you meant by ghosting) is almost unbearable, especially when changing from one bold color to another (blue to yellow for example). Smoothly scrolling down a text-laden webpage is a visual chore as well.
Although I'll agree that ghosting in the traditional sense (fuzziness of the image/a sort of duplicate image) is absent given the digital interface, the motion blur caused by the terrible response time is just unacceptable. I highly doubt Samsung's claim of 25ms, having used this monitor for two years now. I seem to recall hearing a number closer to 40ms (although it could be that 25ms is 1/40sec).
Why do I still have it on my desk if I seem to loathe it so much? It's more than adequate for day-to-day use, it doesn't hurt my eyes, and the amount of desk space reclaimed after ditching my 19" CRT more than makes up for the other annoyances.
That's a pretty nice picture you got there. I'm assuming you had to line them all up in photoshop afterwards?
And if we were to consider the possiblity of up to every gene interacting with each other, that would give us 20000!, or roughly 1.819e+77337 possibilities. (surprisingly enough, that didn't crash the windows calculator program, although it did take a second or two even on an A64)
How many cores will there be on a single chip a decade from now? About 64-128 if Moore's law holds (remember, it's the number of transistors, not the speed). I highly doubt we'll see more than 4-8 cores on desktop computers, even given a whole decade. There will come a point where adding more cores won't be economical or the sensible answer for more computing power, just as making chips faster isn't the answer right now. The paradigm will then shift towards either making the individual cores smaller in order to pack more on a single chip and/or making each individual core run faster and cooler. Nanotechnology is positioning itself as the answer ten years from now, you just can't see it. Putting any more than 4 cores in the same form factor as today's CPUs will absolutely require this kind of technology.
Slashdot's new Virgin killer? Talk about pandering to your target audience! ;)
Yeah, I'd thought about that argument when I started planning to put together a new computer. Let's say a nearly-top-of-the-line (not the FX-53, maybe a 3800+) system costs $2000, but a mid-range system (3000+) costs $1000. So you buy the mid-range system now, and a year from now, that $2000 machine becomes $1000. So you still end up spending $2000. If you buy whole PCs, sure, you get an extra one. But if you're upgrading on a budget, it just makes sense to spend as much as you can afford.
I think that's why the parent poster put combinations in quotation marks, because they aren't really combinations on the source end, just "combinations" on the detector end. For some weird reason, the word for a one-dimensional output signal from multidimensional input escapes me right now.
From their website: "Sunnybrook's new High Dynamic Range displays allow viewers to experience lifelike images that are both 30 times brighter and 10 times darker than a normal display."
This is exactly what I've been waiting for! Up until now, I haven't found a monitor capable of producing a dark enough black to really show off Doom 3 in all its glory.
I meant to say the Desktop Replacement (DTR) version of the Athlon 64, not the true Mobile A64.
I'm getting ready to build a new PC and I've decided on the Athlon64 (it was such a difficult decision... not.). It looks like the mobile chips are basically identical to their desktop brethren except that they don't put out as much heat nor do they have integrated heat spreaders. I really like the fact that they put out less power, perform identically (I think), and only cost a few dollars more.
Does anyone know if you can take a mobile A64 and just plop it in a desktop motherboard (for regular A64s) and have it just work? Or does the BIOS have to be aware of the fact that it's a mobile proc? Will the heatsinks designed for the desktop versions work with a mobile version? Does an A64 really require a 400W+ power supply as many sites suggest?
Not true. His users wanted (not needed!) those features, and did not specifically define them before the project started. If the users are constantly changing their minds about what they want, then they'll have to settle for whatever basic level of functionality was agreed upon in the development contract. Anything more will have to be added after the initial project is completed, and at an appropriate additional cost.
Users rarely know what they want, so only rarely is a program truly designed well.
Then by that logic, it's the fault of the automotive industry for not making my car compatible with leaded gasoline.
He bought a chess game that would run on his computer ten years ago. Ten years! You do realize that ten years ago we were all running 16-bit versions of Mosaic or Netscape 1.0, and that Windows 3.11 on a Pentium 66 was still king, right? Should all modern websites be completely backwards compatible with these ancient browsers? If he wants to run his old chess game, he can still run it on his old computer, unless it stopped working of course.
My only gripe about backwards compatibilty is with Nikon. Their latest autofocus cameras (those made since 2000 or so that aren't top- or next-to-top-of-the-line) can't even do basic metering with a manual focus lens attached, something that all of their older (pre-2000) autofocus cameras could do.
Machine learning might be extremely useful in the development of plugins and extensions. Take Leech for example. It'll download all files with user-specified file extensions that are linked to on a given page. Some photo galleries (and no, I'm not just talking about pr0n here) don't link directly to JPEGs and the like, but instead link to a page that has the JPEG somewhere on it. I know that Photoshop CS does this, because I'm making a gallery of travel photos and it's annoying the hell out of me. With all of the different software packages used to put the galleries together (including CS), it would be a real pain to try and code for each and every implementation and version of a web gallery. If users could train it, or if it came pre-trained with only refinements necessary, that would be extremely useful. Machine learning could also be learned to train other extensions like AdBlock and the like.
Apple will be including a "Private Browsing" feature in Safari when Tiger comes out (not sure if Safari currently has that). For those that don't know what it is, you can tell Safari to not write anything to the history or the location bar for as long as the feature is turned on. If Firefox could be trained by the user to do this, and do it automatically (with a notification icon in the status bar similar to the junk mail icon in mozilla mail & thunderbird), that would be great.
Dashboard looks like a pretty sweet application. With each successive release, Mac OS X becomes an even more impressive desktop OS. They keep throwing stuff in it that boosts productivity (Expose, Dashboard, Automator, etc) while still maintaining its slick appearance. With all these productivity enhancements, sometimes I have to wonder why they don't put together a less-expensive G5 tower (i.e., less than $1500, let alone $2000 without a monitor) and target the business market. Even at $2000+/system, if Apple were to successfully convince just a few large companies to run small pilot programs to study productivity gains, they could make huge inroads into the business computing market. Between Tiger, the new 30" cinema displays, and a dual 2.5GHz G5, Apple really makes me wish I weren't a poor college student. :(
I would love it if there was some feature that embedded a URL in EXIF format in images, or something similar. Basically, it would work like this. You visit a website and download an image or two. Mozilla/Firefox/Whatever inserts the URL of the image into the EXIF data in the image header. That way, when you're trying to remember where you got something later on, you've got it. It would be nice if wget implemented this too.
1. Store data in RAW format. (Thanks to Sigma for pushing this.) This get rid of the useless "low/medium/high quality" switch on the camera. There goes one pointless switch.
On a decent digital camera, you've got the option for storing the images as a RAW file. I personally use RAW+Basic JPEG on my D70 because my old 1.2GHz Athlon takes forever to process the RAW files, and it's nice to have previews. Plus, if you're just shooting candid shots on a whim, why bother storing a 10MB file each, when a 1MB JPEG would do the job just fine for most people?
2. Store all data at the highest resolution. Get rid of the "small/medium/large" switch. If I needed to store more pictures on my card, I would have bought a higher-capacity CF drive. I can get 4GB models now. That should be enough to store hundreds of pics. Another pointless switch, gone...
Have you looked at the price of a 4GB CF card? They're about $1200 for a fast one, or about $500 for a slow one. If you're gonna be shooting a lot of RAW files, you're gonna want the fast one. I just spent $1300 on my Nikon D70, I'd rather not spend almost as much again on a single memory card.
3. Get rid of in-camera white-balance setting, and do this on the computer or laptop or even palmtop to simplify the camera and force the complexity outside. (Again, thanks to Sigma) This can be done on the computer if needed with the RAW file. Most amateur users have NO idea what the hell white-balance means anyways. A third pointless switch gone..
If you know the lighting condition's you're working under, why not just have it adjusted for right away? It's not that complex to do on camera. Just because most amateur users don't know what it means doesn't mean we should get rid of it. What they SHOULD do is allow for white balance correction of JPEG images from the camera.
4. Get rid of the Priority switches- Aperture, Shutter, Etc.. Instead, allow the user to adjust the Aperture & Shutter on a lens ring. The ring can also have a setting for Auto. This can also be done for focusing with a Focusing ring. There- 3 buttons eliminated just like that.
And bring photography back into the 1970's. Every modern film camera (SLR types anyway) have P,S,A,M priority settings on a switch (for Nikon, Canon has its equivalents). You can adjust apertures to 1/3 stop using the camera, something you can't do on an aperture ring. I know your FM2 ONLY has the manual setting, but some of us use aperture and shutter priority modes quite a bit.
5. Get rid of on-camera flashes settings (Keep the wimpy on-camera flash if you must, but leave it on Auto always, and auto-disable when external flash is connected) Pro photographers would have an external flash anyways, and any flash settings can be made on that. Another switch, gone...
Even pro photographers find the small on-camera flashes to be pretty handy, that's why Kodak chose the Nikon N80 body as the base for their DCS14n camera - solely because it had a small on-camera flash. And you can often control the external flashes to some degree using the on-camera settings.
There's so many useless switches on a modern Digital SLR that can be completely thrown away and still provide all the functionality anyone would want.
Useless for you, perhaps. But these features are on every professional-level digital camera because, surprise, professionals find them to be useful. I'd like it if they just got rid of the idiot "program" modes on the D70, like "sports" and "portrait" and such. People that are investing $1000+ on a digital camera should take the time to learn some basic principles of photography (like fast shutter speeds for sports, etc).
Some people may want all these useless features.. for them the camera vendors can have their own special overfeatured model. I would rather have one that's simple and obvious...
Once again, they're only useless for you. They aren't overfeatured
No way in hell I'd believe that someone posing as "Shirley" was anything less than 50 years old. More like Shirley1950. I haven't met anyone near my age (21) named Shirley, and I've met a ton of people. At least use Jenny or Jessica or something more modern.
Would you really want to get paid to look at extreme stuff like goatse and lemonparty all day, every day?
Humans have a visual range of roughly 400-700nm. 800nm is considered to be near infra-red (sometimes called photo infra-red). Nobody ever said photonics had to happen in the visibile range. Ultraviolet radiation ranges between 1-400nm and is currently used for most lithography.
It needs better memory management too, especially with regard to images. There's no reason that loading a page with 15+ decent-sized (or 10+ larger) JPEGs should mess everything up, especially in other browsing windows. Mozilla just can't handle fusker and picleecher very well (both of which do have non-porn uses, believe it or not), or pages made by people who think that a 150k jpeg resized to 60x90 by the browser is ok to use as a thumbnail (and then putting 20-30 of them on a page).
But if you've got 5-10 sites open (in tabs or in seperate windows) and all of the sudden your browser crashes, you didn't mean to close your browser then, did you? I'd like to know if all of the session saving plugins can cope with mozilla/firefox crashing. Having it restore everything when you accidentally closed a window with a ton of tabs is nice, but being able to minimize the effects of a crash on your workflow would be even better.
But... but... this company called AOL keeps shipping me the entire internet on a CD all the time!
As much of the internet is finding out thanks to the recent release of the 37-minute Paris Hilton video, WMV9 is a complete bitch to try and crack. It encrypts the actual video stream with public/private key encryption, kind of like PGP. Sadly, it looks like Microsoft actually had a clue (from the perspective of DRM at least) when they put Windows Media 9 together.