I didn't see any description of your technique, but I'm guessing you do the equivalent of scaling up to say 100x, using nearest-neighbor (no interpolation), then scale back down to the target size using linear interpolation (basically just a moving-average filter). You can do this in Photoshop as described, though a practical implementation would obviously not actually do such wasteful steps.
Using the above to scale 0,2,2,0 by 3.5x results in 0,0,0,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,0 rather than the blurry mess straight linear upscaling would yield. This is the approach if you the original material was displayed with crisp rectangular/square pixels (as 320x200 would appear on most graphics card, where the card itself doubled pixels because the CRT couldn't handle such a low resolution natively), but not if it were displayed with typical CRT pixels.
Repeat after me: A pixel is not a little square. CRT monitors reconstruct an image using something closer to a gaussian distribution, rather than a crisp rectangular one as you'd get if you simply doubled pixels. The graphics of games made when CRTs were common were made on CRTs and thus take advantage of this. The video game console emulation crowd has faced a similar issue, only there it's more than just a CRT; there's also the distortions introduced by the various composite video encoding schemes (color bleed, fringing, artifacts). You might think that removing these distortions would improve the image, but you have to realize that the artists viewed things on the same systems, and thus tailored the art to look good in those circumstances. It's sort of like a web page designer getting a page to look just right in a buggy browser, even though it looks all wrong in one with proper rendering; here you want the buggy browser, at least if you want to see the page as it was intended.
The thing that gets me is that a high-resolution LCD could horizontally display exactly what a Trinitron CRT did, as the vertical stripe phosphor pattern matches that on most LCDs. The scaling algorithm would need to simulate the blurred-edge electron beam and mixing between pixels. There would be some sub-pixel action too, as on a CRT.
Plus, it's a waste to be paying for the extra inputs (component, s-video, composite), remote, tuner, etc. that will never be used
Most of the cost of a large LCD TV is the display panel, not the multiple video inputs. Besides, it's probably more efficient to manufacture just large-screen TV LCDs with low pixel density than manufacture them and large-screen computer LCDs with low pixel density and lacking consumer video inputs.
Even closing one eye, you can accurately determine the distance to an object, because even a 2D surface illuminated by anything other than a pinhole lense is picking up views of the subject from more than one position. With a single eye, you can sift through the multiple views by adjusting its focus.
Please help me understand what a paragraph containing just the word "This" means. I keep seeing people write that and I still can't figure out what it means. Note that it's not a link to anything, just normal text. Thanks.
Why does the software industry keep emphasizing this difference -- and generally giving better pay to four-year grads? Isn't being a developer about real skill level, not the piece of paper on the wall?
Isn't being a four-year grad about having gone to college for four years, not the piece of paper on the wall? Like you said, they study other things like history and sociology.
Yes, inviting attempts to crack the systems, but trumpeting the fact that nobody publicized a successful crack isn't reassuring. Consider the rewards. Win cracking context: $MONEY. Manipulate election: $POWER + $BIG_MONEY.
His point was that the image was a good example of nearly unreadable fine print, if one wanted to make the fine print that way. The parent posts were discussing ways of preventing the user from magnifying it effectively.
The now-finalised text says that a cookie can be stored on a user's computer, or accessed from that computer, only if the user "has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information".
The web server says "hey, here's a cookie you can store for me, if you like, and send it back later to assist me. Do with it as you please." The user's browser either ignores it, or later sends a copy. If this isn't consent, I don't know what the hell is. So the HTTP protocol itself already ensures that all websites are compliant.
Having a new law imposes costs on every website that uses cookies, and having more government is a mixed blessing. Why does it matter whether Microsoft implements better cookie management, anyway? I'd think the goal is for individuals to be able to have more privacy, and they can do so by choosing a browser which allows cookie rejection. It seems the goal is to get revenge on some companies, or to achieve a vague "privacy for the masses" (who can't be bothered to choose a browser which offers more of it).
Maybe we need to implement a new cookie system, identical to the old except the header they're offered under. Instead of "Set-Cookie:", it could be "Dont-Set-Cookie:". So if you accept it, you can't go complaining to the government to stop sites from sending this header.
Why is a legal approach needed, though? A technical solution could achieve it better. By default, reject all cookies. Allow a site to be whitelisted. User whitelists only sites he wants the benefits of cookies from. Maybe also allow "graylist" where cookies from those sites are cleared daily.
The only reason why she [girlfriend] did vet school instead of med school (truth be known vet school is more difficult to get into) is because she likes animals better than people.
Hmmm, I can't say I see long-term prospects in your relationship with your girlfriend...
By fixing their computers, presumably without charge, you are breaking the feedback loop that results in cost to them every time their computer gets infected, and a signal for them to take the time to prevent them. With no cost to themselves, they become like government, pushing the cost on to someone else and not caring.
I'm not sure why, but I find it somewhat ironic that you released pHash under the GPL, even though its purpose is to support the kind of thing the GPL's creators are opposed to.
In other words, we can make use of the fruits of billions of machine-hours on a huge supercomputer that's been running Evolution software for a long time. The results are quite solid, having been run through the equivalent of millions of test-driven development cycles. There's an environment that will only give a passing result to designs which meet its strict criteria, and millions of designs thrown at it, with only a small number passing. And then the tests change, with new designs having to pass the new tests.
Well, I've had this HP loaner LCD for a couple of months and it works great, even after 96182 hours of backlight operation, or so the menu information screen says. It is kind of odd, considering it was manufactured only 7 months ago. I'm thinking the previous owner must have had a time machine or something.
Wow, so if I merely released my own binary-only build of Firefox and never mentioned any fixed vulnerabilities in release notes, this study would have found it with far fewer vulnerabilities than Firefox? I think I found a vulnerability in this study...
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so did they also let the ultimate contract, or do they now award to the second-best bidder?
I didn't see any description of your technique, but I'm guessing you do the equivalent of scaling up to say 100x, using nearest-neighbor (no interpolation), then scale back down to the target size using linear interpolation (basically just a moving-average filter). You can do this in Photoshop as described, though a practical implementation would obviously not actually do such wasteful steps.
Using the above to scale 0,2,2,0 by 3.5x results in 0,0,0,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,0 rather than the blurry mess straight linear upscaling would yield. This is the approach if you the original material was displayed with crisp rectangular/square pixels (as 320x200 would appear on most graphics card, where the card itself doubled pixels because the CRT couldn't handle such a low resolution natively), but not if it were displayed with typical CRT pixels.
Repeat after me: A pixel is not a little square. CRT monitors reconstruct an image using something closer to a gaussian distribution, rather than a crisp rectangular one as you'd get if you simply doubled pixels. The graphics of games made when CRTs were common were made on CRTs and thus take advantage of this. The video game console emulation crowd has faced a similar issue, only there it's more than just a CRT; there's also the distortions introduced by the various composite video encoding schemes (color bleed, fringing, artifacts). You might think that removing these distortions would improve the image, but you have to realize that the artists viewed things on the same systems, and thus tailored the art to look good in those circumstances. It's sort of like a web page designer getting a page to look just right in a buggy browser, even though it looks all wrong in one with proper rendering; here you want the buggy browser, at least if you want to see the page as it was intended.
The thing that gets me is that a high-resolution LCD could horizontally display exactly what a Trinitron CRT did, as the vertical stripe phosphor pattern matches that on most LCDs. The scaling algorithm would need to simulate the blurred-edge electron beam and mixing between pixels. There would be some sub-pixel action too, as on a CRT.
Most of the cost of a large LCD TV is the display panel, not the multiple video inputs. Besides, it's probably more efficient to manufacture just large-screen TV LCDs with low pixel density than manufacture them and large-screen computer LCDs with low pixel density and lacking consumer video inputs.
Even closing one eye, you can accurately determine the distance to an object, because even a 2D surface illuminated by anything other than a pinhole lense is picking up views of the subject from more than one position. With a single eye, you can sift through the multiple views by adjusting its focus.
Please help me understand what a paragraph containing just the word "This" means. I keep seeing people write that and I still can't figure out what it means. Note that it's not a link to anything, just normal text. Thanks.
Same goes for setting up a stand in my living room. Contact me for the agreement form and rental rate.
Isn't being a four-year grad about having gone to college for four years, not the piece of paper on the wall? Like you said, they study other things like history and sociology.
Yes, inviting attempts to crack the systems, but trumpeting the fact that nobody publicized a successful crack isn't reassuring. Consider the rewards. Win cracking context: $MONEY. Manipulate election: $POWER + $BIG_MONEY.
His point was that the image was a good example of nearly unreadable fine print, if one wanted to make the fine print that way. The parent posts were discussing ways of preventing the user from magnifying it effectively.
There; fixed that for you.
The web server says "hey, here's a cookie you can store for me, if you like, and send it back later to assist me. Do with it as you please." The user's browser either ignores it, or later sends a copy. If this isn't consent, I don't know what the hell is. So the HTTP protocol itself already ensures that all websites are compliant.
Having a new law imposes costs on every website that uses cookies, and having more government is a mixed blessing. Why does it matter whether Microsoft implements better cookie management, anyway? I'd think the goal is for individuals to be able to have more privacy, and they can do so by choosing a browser which allows cookie rejection. It seems the goal is to get revenge on some companies, or to achieve a vague "privacy for the masses" (who can't be bothered to choose a browser which offers more of it).
Maybe we need to implement a new cookie system, identical to the old except the header they're offered under. Instead of "Set-Cookie:", it could be "Dont-Set-Cookie:". So if you accept it, you can't go complaining to the government to stop sites from sending this header.
Why is a legal approach needed, though? A technical solution could achieve it better. By default, reject all cookies. Allow a site to be whitelisted. User whitelists only sites he wants the benefits of cookies from. Maybe also allow "graylist" where cookies from those sites are cleared daily.
I have CD-Rs that are over 10 years old and still working perfectly.
Hmmm, I can't say I see long-term prospects in your relationship with your girlfriend...
By fixing their computers, presumably without charge, you are breaking the feedback loop that results in cost to them every time their computer gets infected, and a signal for them to take the time to prevent them. With no cost to themselves, they become like government, pushing the cost on to someone else and not caring.
You forgot a link to Apple's 1984 commercial that firmly establishes the irony.
I'm not sure why, but I find it somewhat ironic that you released pHash under the GPL, even though its purpose is to support the kind of thing the GPL's creators are opposed to.
In other words, we can make use of the fruits of billions of machine-hours on a huge supercomputer that's been running Evolution software for a long time. The results are quite solid, having been run through the equivalent of millions of test-driven development cycles. There's an environment that will only give a passing result to designs which meet its strict criteria, and millions of designs thrown at it, with only a small number passing. And then the tests change, with new designs having to pass the new tests.
You thought the MAFIAA was bad. Just wait until Mother Nature sues you in a natural court of law for copying her works without compensation...
Well, I've had this HP loaner LCD for a couple of months and it works great, even after 96182 hours of backlight operation, or so the menu information screen says. It is kind of odd, considering it was manufactured only 7 months ago. I'm thinking the previous owner must have had a time machine or something.
Better stated as:
GOGO considered harmful
Wow, so if I merely released my own binary-only build of Firefox and never mentioned any fixed vulnerabilities in release notes, this study would have found it with far fewer vulnerabilities than Firefox? I think I found a vulnerability in this study...