IMO, a better approach (which I proposed several years ago) is to sample the sensor and physically cancel out (subtract) the measured charge in the sensor itself, doing this multiple times per exposure to ensure that you don't hit the full well capacity. That approach also has the advantage of letting you do really cool time-based manipulation of the resulting photo. For example, you could do vector-based motion compensation of the individual subframes to dramatically reduce motion blur, compensate for some amount of camera shake, etc.
What you're proposing also has incredible limitations in terms of noise floor and statistical methods. This process is already used in astronomy where integration times are really long. Problem is, in terms of linearity, signal noise ratio, and every other metric other than saturated photocells you get a large quality hit in comparison to capturing the data in one go.
To start with the second word, there should not be any "balances" in place when issuing DV certificates. It's not up to the CA to "balance" anything. A DV certificate achieves one purpose only beside facilitating encryption: certify that the server you are talking to is actually the one addressed in the URL. Nothing more. A DV certificate has nothing to do with the person or the company owning that server. It has nothing to do with the person who registered the domain. It is purely there to say the computer sending you files claiming to be slashdot.org is actually slashdot.org.
The best way of checking this is to actually force the server itself to prove that it is in control of its own URL > by modifying the contents on the server. That is precisely what Lets Encrypt does. This is far better than any human interaction, and far better than some confirmation email sent to some address in some unverified whois record, both methods which are used by traditional CAs.
Not only do Lets Encrypt have proper checks in place, they have better checks than any other CA currently issuing DV certificates. Kaspersky can go pound sand, especially when proving that he either doesn't understand this security process or that he has financial incentive to be wilfully deceitful about this security process.
There is a solution to this: have two grades of certificates
You're right. There is a solution to this. It was developed 12 years ago in the form of EV certificates and has been in use for a long while along with a far better indicator than the one you proposed:
Having in the past gotten a DV certificate through a normal vendor and now getting them through LetsEncrypt, it is quite clear that the process for LetsEncrypt is far more robust (actual proof I have access to the server by modifying it's contents as part of the handshake) than what most other CA's offer which for DV is based on little more than faith, and for EV based on talking to someone in an Indian call centre who can't understand you anyway.
Ugh. Dude. Because S in HTTPS always stood for Encryption right?
The s stands for secure. Your connection to Paypal.com is just as secure as it is to any old scammer who is also encrypting via SSL. No one other than you and your favourite scammer will see your password. You're completely secure.
The fact that the CAs dropepd the ball, does not make the fact that Browsers pushed hard to make it so you can trust a green bar.
Browsers have differentiated levels of security in their green bar for a long time now. You may notice that the green bar looks very different when going to e.g. slashdot.org vs bankofamerica.com.
The little lock (which is what you mean by the green bar because you're not paying attention) has never said that the other side of the connection is trustworthy.
NBow I have to explain to her that 'S does not stand for Secure
Of course it stands for "secure". You can rest assured in the comfort that when you type your Paypal password in at https://www.payypall.com/ I or anyone else other than the operators of the scam site are unable to see your password.
Validation of companies was not part of getting an SSL certificate, not until 2005 anyway when the EV certificate was introduced. And it wasn't long after that browsers started displaying EV details differently which is why when I go to https://www.payypall.com/ I see a green lock, but when I go to https://www.paypal.com/ I see "Paypal Inc, [US]" written in the address bar.
Now I'm going to her and have to explain, that no, things have changed
Things changed 10 YEARS AGO with the introduction of EV certificates and changes in modern browsers like IE7, Firefox 12 and Chrome 1 in how certificates are handled. You are just a bit slow to catch up.
Yep because a high resolution with zero benefit from across the room is totally the same as the recommendation to go see it in IMAX format. Exactly the same thing. Yesssirreee.
without having to bother with the sub-par theatre quality of overpaying for the ticket, the snacks and drinks, the sticky floors, the crappy and probably dirty seats, having to endure idiots around you pushing on your seat, talking, using their damn phones with the brightness at maximum, watching a blurry image and enduring extreme audio loudness with so much bass that you don't even hear anything else.
Or you could go to a cinema in a 1st world country instead of whatever shithole you seem to be living in.
It's really that simple for most people seeing films in theaters is too costly.
But is it really? Most cinemas are cheaper than Chinese takeout. My local IMAX is cheaper than most restaurants.
Sure for *some* people it's expensive, but in terms of entertainment factor, at about $5-10 per hour going to a movie is an incredibly cheap activity. Cheaper than eating, doing any kind of sport where you need to hire equipment or fields, cheaper than going to a football game, definitely cheaper than going to a pub if you're anything other than the designated driver, and even then depending on where you parked your car it could be cheaper than that too.
If going to theatres is too costly maybe we should be sending our food supplies to the USA instead of Africa because I don't understand how you all feed yourselves.
It's still news to Americans that the world doesn't implode simply because someone knows how much you get paid, or why you went to see the doctor last week.
And I refer you back to my original observation about Slashdot covering a press secretary resigning, which in no way is "news for nerds" much less technical news for nerds.
And yet with 465 comments (the highest currently on the first two pages) it is all us nerds want to discuss. So maybe your view of what nerds are interested in is simply outdated.
If people used desktop shortcuts in the past, wouldn't they have the sense to use bookmarks?
I more liken this to someone who has opens every document on their computer just in case they need it throughout the day, and then complains that Office uses too much RAM.
So, Blipverts are the future? This explains why Youtube is killing the 30-second ad in favor of shorter ads, though.
Have you seen the 5 second advert for the advert on Youtube? I think I first saw it with Jason Borne. Matt Damon punched someone and then the logo flashed up. I thought "shit that was a short trailer" but then it said "trailer follows".
Is there anything illegal about streaming content? Pretty much every case I've seen has centred around uploading or making available (the downside of torrenting). On a purely download / streaming basis has anyone actually ever been found guilty of copyright infringement?
And for all it's changes they have been so slow that there's actually little to no effort to cope with the change. The name is a classic example. Even though the upgrade the file is still called lync.exe, and the change from Lync to Skype for business was cosmetic. They didn't even move buttons around on the interface. Heck I'm not sure they did more than make the background white, the title blue, and eliminate window borders.
The last truly jarring change was the introduction of the ribbon. That one would have been a good opportunity for alternatives to be explored. Unfortunately OpenOffice wasn't ready to pick up the slack.
Slashdot is not a technical news site. It's news for nerds. Things of interest to the general nerd group. Based on the amount of comments and discussion the reason you're getting these stories is because this is the kind of news that appeals a lot to nerds. And America flushing itself down the shitter is definitely in the "stuff that matters" category.
stating they will oppose anything Obama does, no matter what it is
There should be something in the constitution that allows such people to instantly be dismissed and disqualified from ever holding public office again. Mind you if politicians actually had to assess laws on their merits it would require them to read. I'm not sure many of them know how to read.
There are many Ubuntu installations out there that are running kernels that are several versions old with intermediate versions that never got booted into being kept perpetually.
It doesn't make sense by default to keep anything more than the most recently installed + the current working one.
Slashdot Mirror
IMO, a better approach (which I proposed several years ago) is to sample the sensor and physically cancel out (subtract) the measured charge in the sensor itself, doing this multiple times per exposure to ensure that you don't hit the full well capacity. That approach also has the advantage of letting you do really cool time-based manipulation of the resulting photo. For example, you could do vector-based motion compensation of the individual subframes to dramatically reduce motion blur, compensate for some amount of camera shake, etc.
What you're proposing also has incredible limitations in terms of noise floor and statistical methods. This process is already used in astronomy where integration times are really long. Problem is, in terms of linearity, signal noise ratio, and every other metric other than saturated photocells you get a large quality hit in comparison to capturing the data in one go.
pure analong systems have been doing this for decades, let's bring back the vacuum tube
You could have just said "I didn't read the article". It would have been shorter to write.
To start with the second word, there should not be any "balances" in place when issuing DV certificates. It's not up to the CA to "balance" anything. A DV certificate achieves one purpose only beside facilitating encryption: certify that the server you are talking to is actually the one addressed in the URL. Nothing more. A DV certificate has nothing to do with the person or the company owning that server. It has nothing to do with the person who registered the domain. It is purely there to say the computer sending you files claiming to be slashdot.org is actually slashdot.org.
The best way of checking this is to actually force the server itself to prove that it is in control of its own URL > by modifying the contents on the server. That is precisely what Lets Encrypt does. This is far better than any human interaction, and far better than some confirmation email sent to some address in some unverified whois record, both methods which are used by traditional CAs.
Not only do Lets Encrypt have proper checks in place, they have better checks than any other CA currently issuing DV certificates. Kaspersky can go pound sand, especially when proving that he either doesn't understand this security process or that he has financial incentive to be wilfully deceitful about this security process.
There is a solution to this: have two grades of certificates
You're right. There is a solution to this. It was developed 12 years ago in the form of EV certificates and has been in use for a long while along with a far better indicator than the one you proposed:
If you go to https://www.slashdot.org/ you will see a little green lock and the word "Secure"
If you go to https://www.bankofamerica.com/ you will see a little green lock and the words "Bank of America Corporation [US]"
No need for any fancy domain name URL checking.
Not only is it BS, it's the exact opposite.
Having in the past gotten a DV certificate through a normal vendor and now getting them through LetsEncrypt, it is quite clear that the process for LetsEncrypt is far more robust (actual proof I have access to the server by modifying it's contents as part of the handshake) than what most other CA's offer which for DV is based on little more than faith, and for EV based on talking to someone in an Indian call centre who can't understand you anyway.
Ugh. Dude. Because S in HTTPS always stood for Encryption right?
The s stands for secure. Your connection to Paypal.com is just as secure as it is to any old scammer who is also encrypting via SSL. No one other than you and your favourite scammer will see your password. You're completely secure.
The fact that the CAs dropepd the ball, does not make the fact that Browsers pushed hard to make it so you can trust a green bar.
Browsers have differentiated levels of security in their green bar for a long time now. You may notice that the green bar looks very different when going to e.g. slashdot.org vs bankofamerica.com.
The little lock (which is what you mean by the green bar because you're not paying attention) has never said that the other side of the connection is trustworthy.
NBow I have to explain to her that 'S does not stand for Secure
Of course it stands for "secure". You can rest assured in the comfort that when you type your Paypal password in at https://www.payypall.com/ I or anyone else other than the operators of the scam site are unable to see your password.
Validation of companies was not part of getting an SSL certificate, not until 2005 anyway when the EV certificate was introduced. And it wasn't long after that browsers started displaying EV details differently which is why when I go to https://www.payypall.com/ I see a green lock, but when I go to https://www.paypal.com/ I see "Paypal Inc, [US]" written in the address bar.
Now I'm going to her and have to explain, that no, things have changed
Things changed 10 YEARS AGO with the introduction of EV certificates and changes in modern browsers like IE7, Firefox 12 and Chrome 1 in how certificates are handled. You are just a bit slow to catch up.
4K resolutions dwarf many local theaters
Yep because a high resolution with zero benefit from across the room is totally the same as the recommendation to go see it in IMAX format. Exactly the same thing. Yesssirreee.
without having to bother with the sub-par theatre quality of overpaying for the ticket, the snacks and drinks, the sticky floors, the crappy and probably dirty seats, having to endure idiots around you pushing on your seat, talking, using their damn phones with the brightness at maximum, watching a blurry image and enduring extreme audio loudness with so much bass that you don't even hear anything else.
Or you could go to a cinema in a 1st world country instead of whatever shithole you seem to be living in.
It's really that simple for most people seeing films in theaters is too costly.
But is it really? Most cinemas are cheaper than Chinese takeout. My local IMAX is cheaper than most restaurants.
Sure for *some* people it's expensive, but in terms of entertainment factor, at about $5-10 per hour going to a movie is an incredibly cheap activity. Cheaper than eating, doing any kind of sport where you need to hire equipment or fields, cheaper than going to a football game, definitely cheaper than going to a pub if you're anything other than the designated driver, and even then depending on where you parked your car it could be cheaper than that too.
If going to theatres is too costly maybe we should be sending our food supplies to the USA instead of Africa because I don't understand how you all feed yourselves.
It's still news to Americans that the world doesn't implode simply because someone knows how much you get paid, or why you went to see the doctor last week.
How do you know it was safe to do so? Could have been someone tailgating.
But there wasn't. By your own admission the only reason you didn't stop was because you knew that traffic light was long.
And I refer you back to my original observation about Slashdot covering a press secretary resigning, which in no way is "news for nerds" much less technical news for nerds.
And yet with 465 comments (the highest currently on the first two pages) it is all us nerds want to discuss. So maybe your view of what nerds are interested in is simply outdated.
If people used desktop shortcuts in the past, wouldn't they have the sense to use bookmarks?
I more liken this to someone who has opens every document on their computer just in case they need it throughout the day, and then complains that Office uses too much RAM.
I think the big problem is that users don't understand what that little star on the right side of the browser bar does anymore.
So, Blipverts are the future? This explains why Youtube is killing the 30-second ad in favor of shorter ads, though.
Have you seen the 5 second advert for the advert on Youtube? I think I first saw it with Jason Borne. Matt Damon punched someone and then the logo flashed up. I thought "shit that was a short trailer" but then it said "trailer follows".
WTF it was an advert for an advert.
Is there anything illegal about streaming content? Pretty much every case I've seen has centred around uploading or making available (the downside of torrenting). On a purely download / streaming basis has anyone actually ever been found guilty of copyright infringement?
Other than it'll now 10x faster due to no need for A/V.
When the computer runs that fast it becomes impossible to form an understandable sentence. It's best to stick with windows.
I think it's called Lync now or was it Skype?
And for all it's changes they have been so slow that there's actually little to no effort to cope with the change. The name is a classic example. Even though the upgrade the file is still called lync.exe, and the change from Lync to Skype for business was cosmetic. They didn't even move buttons around on the interface. Heck I'm not sure they did more than make the background white, the title blue, and eliminate window borders.
The last truly jarring change was the introduction of the ribbon. That one would have been a good opportunity for alternatives to be explored. Unfortunately OpenOffice wasn't ready to pick up the slack.
And as soon as it makes it onto the internet, rare is an oxymoron
Not at all true. For all the bits floating around the internet having a single video posted on a single site definitely fits the definition of rare.
technical news site
Slashdot is not a technical news site. It's news for nerds. Things of interest to the general nerd group. Based on the amount of comments and discussion the reason you're getting these stories is because this is the kind of news that appeals a lot to nerds. And America flushing itself down the shitter is definitely in the "stuff that matters" category.
stating they will oppose anything Obama does, no matter what it is
There should be something in the constitution that allows such people to instantly be dismissed and disqualified from ever holding public office again. Mind you if politicians actually had to assess laws on their merits it would require them to read. I'm not sure many of them know how to read.
There are many Ubuntu installations out there that are running kernels that are several versions old with intermediate versions that never got booted into being kept perpetually.
It doesn't make sense by default to keep anything more than the most recently installed + the current working one.
What is a CD burner? ;-)