Including javascript written by somebody else on your website is about the most ass-rapingly huge consent that you can give anyone - it says "here, do anything you want with my readers' virtual machines". They may be too stupid to realise that, but stupidity is never grounds for reducing culpability.
Your analogy has nothing in common with the situation in question at all.
The situation is basically no different from the old 1x1px transparent web bugs of old. The tech savvy have known the implications of those for over a decade: the first google hit points to 1999, http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-243077.html , but they go back a while before that.
The browser is willingly doing it. Website X has said "please connect to facebook for an image", the browser says "sure thing, I love facebook, I love them so much I even store data for, and share data with, them". The browser loves facebook because the user has either shown a love for facebook, or for all websites, and is simply doing what it thinks you want.
If you have given your consent for your browser to load 3rd party images on webpages, you *have* consented to have 3rd party websites tracking your web usage.
So you can no longer serve images which don't have you as the referer and mine your server logs?
Facebook seem the least culpable for this - other websites chose to add the buttons, and users' (unthinkingly) *initiate* communication with facebook. All fb are doing is giving people what is being asked for, and logging that transaction. This seems as badly thought out as the deep linking lawsuits in the past. Blame the browser writers for not defaulting to blocking 3rd-party images before blaming facebook for this.
For each depth, out-of-focus can be seen as equivalent to being a Gaussian 'motion' kernel. The issues with that are that each layer of the image needs its own kernel (and it's even worse if the image doesn't come in clear layers, but for a typical portrait shot, it works), and that the inverse of the Gaussian can cause noise to blow up dramatically, as some of the multiplication terms can be huge.
So it's hard, but it's not quite fair to say the data isn't there, it's just very well smudged.
""" This will make things LOOK pretty. It won't make missing data suddenly appear. At best it will make something ugly LOOK a little better. But that's just a computer-generated illusion, not a reflection of reality. """
If you believe that, then get your hands on any of the software that's been able to perform deconvolution before this Photoshop plugin (it's at least 10 year old technology, the only thing that's new about this is the speed), and run the process over a blurred image and over the same blurred image once you've run a non-linear noise reduction filter over it (such as a 3x3 median filter). The former will deconvolve much more successfully, which should prove to you that the noise in the original wasn't actually noise, but contained real information that had been smeared about. I.e. the process will make smeared data appear closer to where should be. So you do see more data - it's not an illusion.
Did not, but now perhaps does: http://www.focusmagic.com/examplemotionblur.htm I say perhaps, as it seems like it might limited to unidirectional motion smears.
Anyway, the clever thing in this demo was not the deconvolution (a trivial convolution operation in itself), but the calculation of an accurate estimate to the original jitter pattern.
But at least DEC's round mouse had 3 prominent buttons that told your hand immediately what orientation it was in. So you only had to hold it to know you were holding it wrong. Apple's really was a puck, and you had to move it to know you were holding it wrong.
And let's not imagine for one minute that Jobs was the sole mould-breaker in Apple. There were indeed two key contributors in that direction - Woz and Raskin.
Metaphorically praying for the end of the reality distortion field...
Dang - I just ran over to my g/f's machine, as I know she's on an IBM keyboard, and I discovered she's *not* got the Model M (which I inherited in 1989 as run-into-the-ground trash), but some horrible 90s version. That means my old Model M is probably somewhere in a landfill in a neighbouring country, as I ditched a whole load of stuff before moving here.:-(
However, I do have the 8" floppy discs with Microsoft Basic for CPM/Z80 from 1980 still - hoorah! (which is on topic - it's Microsoft story!)
Of course it's not a command line, it's not got the ability to pass switches to the process being launched. Or to redirect input or output. Or pipe output to an additional process. Or only run a second process depenging on the result of running the first process...
However the TAB key does perform a search when I'm at my command line prompt.
Command line >> search box in almost every possible way. If you're going to force people to type things in order to find and run an application stopping at just the searching part seems like selling them short.
I think that from a "what the user can experience" aspect, most OSes are practically equivalent nowadays, and "best" is too subjective a word to use.
Linux is currently the most versatile general purpose OS, certainly. That's because it's been forced to evolve in a direction that keeps all the major contributors happy. Windows has only evolved in directions that keep MS happy, and in directions that force the inane albatros of backwards compatability with something that was very poorly designed and ephemeral to remain hanging round its neck.
Also, linux might be potentially best for high end smartphones (I'd say only for split AP/modem designs, not for single-core designs), but it's only as good as the shit you pile on top of it. Modern phones have layer upon layer of abstraction, and if any one of those layers is crap, you've ruined any benefit from having Linux at the bottom. For example, it's easy to see that nokia's use of dbus in the n900 was completely braindead, and sent performance for trivial phonebook tasks through the floor, as it played ping-pong with a thousand bowling balls serially.
(Disclosure: Nokia don't pay me to post the above, but do pay me to do other things.)
Plenty working on Linux are from Russia too. The input layer subsystem is Dmitry Torokhov's ward, for example, and Artem Bityutskiy gave us UBI(FS). Not to mention a great number of footsoldiers contributing a whole host of drivers, features, fixes, etc. I've worked alongside a great many Russians, and they were highly skilled and rigorous engineers.
The distinction you make is an artificial one, and not useful. The location of the flowerpot is just as secret as the key itself. Reread Kerckhoff's principles again - it makes no reference to "obscurity". There is secret, and there is non-secret, that's all.
Minimisation of the amount that needs to be kept secret is all that matters. Perfection in this regard is when all the necessary secrecy is condensed into a datum of small size N, and the work-factor required to get around not knowing that datum is O(2^N). For historical reasons, we call that datum either a password or a key.
I presume that's Nokia's own powertop, rather than the upstream one? That's been significantly tweaked and improved by Nokia's kernel team and is the actual app which we use internally to identify misbehaving tasks. (Of course, once we see the wakeups in powertop we'll throw ftrace/strace and if need be FTC at the problem to identify what it's doing that it should be.) One of the things I was happiest about in Nokia was their willingness to share anything and everything useful and their general developer-friendly attitude. (Disclosure: They are my $DAYJOB)
You are making at least one assumption that is false. Alas I am not permitted to say anything more in that regard, due to $DAYJOB. But certainly with false assumptions you deduce false conclusions.
> Nazis leap to mind. They used 'science' to justify their policies
There's a difference between using science to justify something, and using the word 'science' to justify things. At least you got that bit right, it's just a shame that it completely destroys your argument. Science itself was never used, only the word was used.
However, you invoked Godwin, you had lost already.
Slashdot Mirror
Including javascript written by somebody else on your website is about the most ass-rapingly huge consent that you can give anyone - it says "here, do anything you want with my readers' virtual machines". They may be too stupid to realise that, but stupidity is never grounds for reducing culpability.
What's so hard about the "Never" answer, when asked if you want to accept a cookie from facebook? In firefox it's just two clicks - "always", "no".
Your analogy has nothing in common with the situation in question at all.
The situation is basically no different from the old 1x1px transparent web bugs of old. The tech savvy have known the implications of those for over a decade: the first google hit points to 1999, http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-243077.html , but they go back a while before that.
The browser is willingly doing it. Website X has said "please connect to facebook for an image", the browser says "sure thing, I love facebook, I love them so much I even store data for, and share data with, them". The browser loves facebook because the user has either shown a love for facebook, or for all websites, and is simply doing what it thinks you want.
If you have given your consent for your browser to load 3rd party images on webpages, you *have* consented to have 3rd party websites tracking your web usage.
So you can no longer serve images which don't have you as the referer and mine your server logs?
Facebook seem the least culpable for this - other websites chose to add the buttons, and users' (unthinkingly) *initiate* communication with facebook. All fb are doing is giving people what is being asked for, and logging that transaction. This seems as badly thought out as the deep linking lawsuits in the past. Blame the browser writers for not defaulting to blocking 3rd-party images before blaming facebook for this.
There's no can't, as long as you're prepared to permit guesswork:
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/84040-depixelizing-pixel-art-upscaling-retro-8bit-games
For each depth, out-of-focus can be seen as equivalent to being a Gaussian 'motion' kernel. The issues with that are that each layer of the image needs its own kernel (and it's even worse if the image doesn't come in clear layers, but for a typical portrait shot, it works), and that the inverse of the Gaussian can cause noise to blow up dramatically, as some of the multiplication terms can be huge.
So it's hard, but it's not quite fair to say the data isn't there, it's just very well smudged.
It's not "interpolating" that's important here.
"""
This will make things LOOK pretty. It won't make missing data suddenly appear. At best it will make something ugly LOOK a little better. But that's just a computer-generated illusion, not a reflection of reality.
"""
If you believe that, then get your hands on any of the software that's been able to perform deconvolution before this Photoshop plugin (it's at least 10 year old technology, the only thing that's new about this is the speed), and run the process over a blurred image and over the same blurred image once you've run a non-linear noise reduction filter over it (such as a 3x3 median filter). The former will deconvolve much more successfully, which should prove to you that the noise in the original wasn't actually noise, but contained real information that had been smeared about. I.e. the process will make smeared data appear closer to where should be. So you do see more data - it's not an illusion.
Did not, but now perhaps does:
http://www.focusmagic.com/examplemotionblur.htm
I say perhaps, as it seems like it might limited to unidirectional motion smears.
Anyway, the clever thing in this demo was not the deconvolution (a trivial convolution operation in itself), but the calculation of an accurate estimate to the original jitter pattern.
But at least DEC's round mouse had 3 prominent buttons that told your hand immediately what orientation it was in. So you only had to hold it to know you were holding it wrong. Apple's really was a puck, and you had to move it to know you were holding it wrong.
And let's not imagine for one minute that Jobs was the sole mould-breaker in Apple. There were indeed two key contributors in that direction - Woz and Raskin.
Metaphorically praying for the end of the reality distortion field...
Dang - I just ran over to my g/f's machine, as I know she's on an IBM keyboard, and I discovered she's *not* got the Model M (which I inherited in 1989 as run-into-the-ground trash), but some horrible 90s version. That means my old Model M is probably somewhere in a landfill in a neighbouring country, as I ditched a whole load of stuff before moving here. :-(
However, I do have the 8" floppy discs with Microsoft Basic for CPM/Z80 from 1980 still - hoorah! (which is on topic - it's Microsoft story!)
Of course it's not a command line, it's not got the ability to pass switches to the process being launched. Or to redirect input or output. Or pipe output to an additional process. Or only run a second process depenging on the result of running the first process...
However the TAB key does perform a search when I'm at my command line prompt.
Command line >> search box in almost every possible way. If you're going to force people to type things in order to find and run an application stopping at just the searching part seems like selling them short.
I think that from a "what the user can experience" aspect, most OSes are practically equivalent nowadays, and "best" is too subjective a word to use.
Linux is currently the most versatile general purpose OS, certainly. That's because it's been forced to evolve in a direction that keeps all the major contributors happy. Windows has only evolved in directions that keep MS happy, and in directions that force the inane albatros of backwards compatability with something that was very poorly designed and ephemeral to remain hanging round its neck.
Also, linux might be potentially best for high end smartphones (I'd say only for split AP/modem designs, not for single-core designs), but it's only as good as the shit you pile on top of it. Modern phones have layer upon layer of abstraction, and if any one of those layers is crap, you've ruined any benefit from having Linux at the bottom. For example, it's easy to see that nokia's use of dbus in the n900 was completely braindead, and sent performance for trivial phonebook tasks through the floor, as it played ping-pong with a thousand bowling balls serially.
(Disclosure: Nokia don't pay me to post the above, but do pay me to do other things.)
"unless someone at Nokia have gone axe crazy"
If only you knew...
And that he won't lock himself out by repeatedly trying "pony right cell staple", or similar.
Plenty working on Linux are from Russia too. The input layer subsystem is Dmitry Torokhov's ward, for example, and Artem Bityutskiy gave us UBI(FS). Not to mention a great number of footsoldiers contributing a whole host of drivers, features, fixes, etc. I've worked alongside a great many Russians, and they were highly skilled and rigorous engineers.
The problem with your bluster is that your prior comment displayed a distinct lack of knowledge.
As you can verify on my CV, my knowledge of linux within Nokia telephony products is highly reliable first hand.
The distinction you make is an artificial one, and not useful. The location of the flowerpot is just as secret as the key itself. Reread Kerckhoff's principles again - it makes no reference to "obscurity". There is secret, and there is non-secret, that's all.
Minimisation of the amount that needs to be kept secret is all that matters. Perfection in this regard is when all the necessary secrecy is condensed into a datum of small size N, and the work-factor required to get around not knowing that datum is O(2^N). For historical reasons, we call that datum either a password or a key.
I presume that's Nokia's own powertop, rather than the upstream one? That's been significantly tweaked and improved by Nokia's kernel team and is the actual app which we use internally to identify misbehaving tasks. (Of course, once we see the wakeups in powertop we'll throw ftrace/strace and if need be FTC at the problem to identify what it's doing that it should be.) One of the things I was happiest about in Nokia was their willingness to share anything and everything useful and their general developer-friendly attitude. (Disclosure: They are my $DAYJOB)
You are making at least one assumption that is false. Alas I am not permitted to say anything more in that regard, due to $DAYJOB. But certainly with false assumptions you deduce false conclusions.
> Nazis leap to mind. They used 'science' to justify their policies
There's a difference between using science to justify something, and using the word 'science' to justify things. At least you got that bit right, it's just a shame that it completely destroys your argument. Science itself was never used, only the word was used.
However, you invoked Godwin, you had lost already.
Nokia's n9 is .deb based, and Qt. Don't be fooled by the "MeeGo" label that I notice is suspiciously absent from Nokia's press release today.
.debs, the dpkg isn't quite the one you're used to...
However, be warned, even though it's based on
> MeeGo killed off maemo which made the 900 look less likely to remain interesting.
Au contraire - everything I witnessed pointed to people buying every n900 they could get their hands on. The hobbyists were clearly interested.