Nature, or nurture? I'll assume that they were raised by members of the same family, and often families will have similar political leanings due to extended periods of living together.
Security concerns regarding one particular type of voting machine were raised. They were proved to be valid. It is possible to determine, at a distance of tens of metres, what is on the display of machine. Through this, one can tell who is being voted for at any particular time. The ballot is no longer secret.
Because of this, that particular type of voting machine can no longer be used in elections. Other electronic voting machines will be tested for the same problem before they are allowed to be used. This is not "cheapass symbolism." A problem was identified, and halted before it could affect the fairness of the democratic system.
As for "cheapass symbolism," any politician, US, Dutch, Canadian, or wherever worth their salt knows that it will get more votes than actual problem solving. Won't someone think of the children? Stay the course! Read my lips, no new taxes!
After having her wisdom teeth out, my wife was restricted to soft foods only for a couple of days. She was starving until I convinced her that it wasn't disgusting to drink a shot of olive oil. There are regions in Italy where it is regularly consumed straight, and an ounce of fat is very good at satisfying hunger.
I'm personally boycotting any travel to the US for this and a myriad of other reasons. Apart from all the risks to my own personal liberty and freedom if I do happen to go there, there's the added fact that it's faster to fly to Europe than to the US (from Canada).
When you add the four hours spent getting through security to the four hour flight, that pretty much equals the 1h security + 7h flight to Europe. And, you get to spend more of that time sitting down, rather than standing in line on a hard concrete floor.
Using the non-cited stats on wiki, a blink takes 100ms start to finish, and there are 10 blinks per minute on average. 16h/day (awake), 60min/h, 365.25d/y
Almost 100h/year (per person) spent blinking.
The US actually wastes almost 30 billion hours per year blinking!
Yes and no. A liquid crash couch would cushion the body against the acceleration, and provide support in the same way that g-suits do for aviators and current astronauts. If the liquid was breathable, then it would also provide internal support as well.
I'm not sure I agree with you here. My understanding is that QE is the chance that a photon hitting the light sensitive area will generate an electron-hole pair. The fill factor is nothing to do with it, but still important of course.
Bah, you spoil my explanation by pointing out the flaws in it:)
Okay, fine, I'll concede to you that QE which takes fill factor into account is normally referred to as effective QE. It's a way to compare different sensors without having to use two different numbers, and works because fill factor and QE can directly be multiplied together to get the behaviour of a sensor.
I think the 30% QE that you've quoted for CMOS processes does take into account fill factor. With a huge pixel that is mostly photodiode, there's no reason why the effective QE couldn't be better than a CCD sensor, which uses photogates.
Heh - some more clarification: In a standard CMOS process, there is a 30% chance that a photon hitting the sensor surface will: 1. Strike a light-sensitive portion of the surface 2. Penetrate deep enough to generate an electron-hole pair inside the silicon 3. Not be so deep as to prevent the capture of the electron in the pixel's depletion region 4. Generate an electron-hole pair that does not recombine before the electron is captured in the pixel's potential well.
The number (30%) is referred to as the quantum efficiency. CCD sensors have higher QE than CMOS because they have a larger percentage of the pixel that is light sensitive (higher fill factor).
Even more clarification: the quantum efficiency will be different for different wavelengths of light. Shorter wavelengths will have trouble penetrating into the silicon, and longer wavelengths will generate electron-hole pairs too deep in the silicon to be captured. Also, the colour filters applied to the sensors will absorb different wavelengths to different degrees.
More like grain size in conventional film. Faster speed film (higher ASA) have larger grains, with faster response. The fine-grained films (low ASA numbers) require longer exposure times because the light-sensitive grains are smaller.
Some CMOS imagers have separate collection and storage sites in each pixel. You can think of them as like inter-line transfer CCDs. This allows for a global shutter, and the elimination of any image smear or tearing. Of course, the older, simpler CMOS image sensors didn't have this capability, so you would have to watch out for rolling shutter artefacts on those.
Yes . . . and no. Each photon that hits a pixel will create one electron (gross simplification). The electrons are shuffled through the CCDs in packets until they get to an amplifier at the end, which converts the charge into a voltage that can then be fed through an ADC to give you a digital number. Each pixel gets read out separately.
With a 10um x 10um pixel, you'll collect (say) 100,000 electrons at a certain exposure time. This translates to a digital number of 1024 (or whatever). If each pixel is only 5um x 5um, each pixel will collect 25,000 electrons, and the resulting digital number is 256. To get the same output with pixels 1/4 the size, you need 4x the light - either a larger aperture (or lens) or a longer exposure time.
The numbers can't just be gained up (digitally or in the analog world) because of noise. The amplifier on the CCD will give you a certain number of electrons in noise. If you get a larger signal through gaining it up, you also gain up the noise. You'll end up with a smaller dynamic range in the camera, where dynamic range is defined as the signal level at saturation divided by the noise level.
Now, there are some people who use smaller pixels, but use something called "binning" in low-light situations. In CCDs, it is possible to add the electrons from several different pixels together before doing the charge-to-voltage conversion. However, this results in a loss of resolution. With 2x2 binning, your 2k x 2k sensor effectively becomes a 1k x 1k sensor with four times the sensitivity.
Well, if you really want to get into it, the Seitz sensor (actually made by Dalsa) is a TDI sensor. It is referred to as a "high-sensitivity linescan". In linescan sensors, there is a single row of pixels. You capture the image one row at a time. A TDI sensor works the same way as a linescan, capturing the image one row at a time. However, the difference is that there are more rows of pixels on the sensor. The electrons are moved through the sensor at the same rate that the image moves across it. This means you can get longer integration times per row, without decreasing the speed of the sensor readout.
Dalsa has a website that describes the different types of sensors and has diagrams that explain the functioning of TDI sensors.
The Dalsa sensor itself is not 60mm x 170mm. It is 60mm tall, and scans across an area 170mm long. The sensor itself actually pans across the back of the camera, to capture the entire image.
Yes, the areas where more than 8MPix are not consumer level. However, at 30,000 euros, this camera is also _not_ consumer level. The people that are buying these cameras are the same people that will be making enormous billboards and posters. There is a market for these cameras, it's just not the general public.
denisbergeron is correct. If you look at the specs, it says the sensor is a "TDI" sensor. This sensor scans across the focal plane of the camera. It is 7500 pixels tall, with 2500 each R, G and B pixels. The full pixel colour is interpolated for each pixel.
I think it's neat that they use the same "digital back" module on a 360 degree panoramic camera. The camera rotates at a constant rate, and the sensor can then capture the 360 degree image.
The only thing to watch out for with the 160MPix camera is the rolling shutter. One side of the image will be captured almost immediately, but the other side will be captured 1 second later (at max speed, max resolution). With moving subjects, this can lead to lots of strange image artefacts - squishing or stretching, multiple images, etc. Their website has a couple of images where this effect has been used artistically, but a tripod would be absolutely required to take a decent image of a still subject.
Since pixels need to collect photons in order to generate the electrons that form an image, the smaller you make them, the less responsive they are. With smaller and smaller pixels, you either need longer exposure times (opening yourself up to blur if the subject is moving), or larger lenses (which cost mucho mucho dinero). People are already making pixels at 2.5um pitch. You are unlikely to see any further major reduction in that size, given the constraints of responsivity.
Well, probably not 14 gallons unless you're really sedentary, but if someone walks two miles a day, and uses one fluid ounce of shampoo every day, that's 150 fl.oz., or almost 1.2 gallons.
Ha! If you make it to the very end, you'll find that D2L is counter-suing for five things, amongst which are:
The court dismiss Blackboard's request for relief The court find the patent unenforceable The court find the patent invalid Attorney and legal fees for D2L's defense of this case any other fines that the court deems appropriate
If you do a cost-benefits analysis on replacing appliances with more energy-efficient models, you'll find that it's usually not worth it, unless the old appliance is already at the end of their life.
Say you have a fridge that cost $800 to buy, and you've had it for 10 years. If you think it will last another 10 years (not unlikely), then by throwing it out now, you're throwing out $400 worth of value (using a gross simplification). How many kWh would you have to save over the next 10 years to add up to that $400? And if you're looking at just the energy consumption of the device, from a purely environmental standpoint, throwing out a fridge only halfway through its life is throwing away half of the energy used in its production. This is not an inconsequential amount.
While I heartily agree with replacing dead appliances with more energy-efficient ones, I do recommend some deeper analysis before any functioning ones are thrown out to make room for newer things.
I suspect that he would run out of buildings tall enough to use before he crashed into them. I can see arcing back and forth across a street as a plausible mode of transport, but really, how many blocks can you go before you're out in the 3 and 4 storey buildings?
(caveat - I've never been to New York, but in Toronto you'd be able to go about three city blocks, straight up Bay Street, and nowhere else).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes - the grotto uses so much water, the bunnies thought it was a good idea.
Nature, or nurture? I'll assume that they were raised by members of the same family, and often families will have similar political leanings due to extended periods of living together.
RTFA Troll.
Security concerns regarding one particular type of voting machine were raised. They were proved to be valid. It is possible to determine, at a distance of tens of metres, what is on the display of machine. Through this, one can tell who is being voted for at any particular time. The ballot is no longer secret.
Because of this, that particular type of voting machine can no longer be used in elections. Other electronic voting machines will be tested for the same problem before they are allowed to be used. This is not "cheapass symbolism." A problem was identified, and halted before it could affect the fairness of the democratic system.
As for "cheapass symbolism," any politician, US, Dutch, Canadian, or wherever worth their salt knows that it will get more votes than actual problem solving. Won't someone think of the children? Stay the course! Read my lips, no new taxes!
This story's just six words long.
Sun goes nova. Aliens rescue dolphins.
Well, walk slowly for your life, anyway.
After having her wisdom teeth out, my wife was restricted to soft foods only for a couple of days. She was starving until I convinced her that it wasn't disgusting to drink a shot of olive oil. There are regions in Italy where it is regularly consumed straight, and an ounce of fat is very good at satisfying hunger.
Troll? Maybe. Insightful? I think so.
I'm personally boycotting any travel to the US for this and a myriad of other reasons. Apart from all the risks to my own personal liberty and freedom if I do happen to go there, there's the added fact that it's faster to fly to Europe than to the US (from Canada).
When you add the four hours spent getting through security to the four hour flight, that pretty much equals the 1h security + 7h flight to Europe. And, you get to spend more of that time sitting down, rather than standing in line on a hard concrete floor.
Using the non-cited stats on wiki, a blink takes 100ms start to finish, and there are 10 blinks per minute on average. 16h/day (awake), 60min/h, 365.25d/y
Almost 100h/year (per person) spent blinking.
The US actually wastes almost 30 billion hours per year blinking!
'cause knowing is half the battle!
It's actually the X-2 prize.
Yes and no. A liquid crash couch would cushion the body against the acceleration, and provide support in the same way that g-suits do for aviators and current astronauts. If the liquid was breathable, then it would also provide internal support as well.
It's a fairly common meme in science fiction.
I'm not sure I agree with you here. My understanding is that QE is the chance that a photon hitting the light sensitive area will generate an electron-hole pair. The fill factor is nothing to do with it, but still important of course.
:)
Bah, you spoil my explanation by pointing out the flaws in it
Okay, fine, I'll concede to you that QE which takes fill factor into account is normally referred to as effective QE. It's a way to compare different sensors without having to use two different numbers, and works because fill factor and QE can directly be multiplied together to get the behaviour of a sensor.
I think the 30% QE that you've quoted for CMOS processes does take into account fill factor. With a huge pixel that is mostly photodiode, there's no reason why the effective QE couldn't be better than a CCD sensor, which uses photogates.
Heh - some more clarification: In a standard CMOS process, there is a 30% chance that a photon hitting the sensor surface will:
:)
1. Strike a light-sensitive portion of the surface
2. Penetrate deep enough to generate an electron-hole pair inside the silicon
3. Not be so deep as to prevent the capture of the electron in the pixel's depletion region
4. Generate an electron-hole pair that does not recombine before the electron is captured in the pixel's potential well.
The number (30%) is referred to as the quantum efficiency. CCD sensors have higher QE than CMOS because they have a larger percentage of the pixel that is light sensitive (higher fill factor).
Even more clarification: the quantum efficiency will be different for different wavelengths of light. Shorter wavelengths will have trouble penetrating into the silicon, and longer wavelengths will generate electron-hole pairs too deep in the silicon to be captured. Also, the colour filters applied to the sensors will absorb different wavelengths to different degrees.
Huzzah clarifications!
More like grain size in conventional film. Faster speed film (higher ASA) have larger grains, with faster response. The fine-grained films (low ASA numbers) require longer exposure times because the light-sensitive grains are smaller.
Some CMOS imagers have separate collection and storage sites in each pixel. You can think of them as like inter-line transfer CCDs. This allows for a global shutter, and the elimination of any image smear or tearing. Of course, the older, simpler CMOS image sensors didn't have this capability, so you would have to watch out for rolling shutter artefacts on those.
Yes . . . and no. Each photon that hits a pixel will create one electron (gross simplification). The electrons are shuffled through the CCDs in packets until they get to an amplifier at the end, which converts the charge into a voltage that can then be fed through an ADC to give you a digital number. Each pixel gets read out separately.
With a 10um x 10um pixel, you'll collect (say) 100,000 electrons at a certain exposure time. This translates to a digital number of 1024 (or whatever). If each pixel is only 5um x 5um, each pixel will collect 25,000 electrons, and the resulting digital number is 256. To get the same output with pixels 1/4 the size, you need 4x the light - either a larger aperture (or lens) or a longer exposure time.
The numbers can't just be gained up (digitally or in the analog world) because of noise. The amplifier on the CCD will give you a certain number of electrons in noise. If you get a larger signal through gaining it up, you also gain up the noise. You'll end up with a smaller dynamic range in the camera, where dynamic range is defined as the signal level at saturation divided by the noise level.
Now, there are some people who use smaller pixels, but use something called "binning" in low-light situations. In CCDs, it is possible to add the electrons from several different pixels together before doing the charge-to-voltage conversion. However, this results in a loss of resolution. With 2x2 binning, your 2k x 2k sensor effectively becomes a 1k x 1k sensor with four times the sensitivity.
Well, if you really want to get into it, the Seitz sensor (actually made by Dalsa) is a TDI sensor. It is referred to as a "high-sensitivity linescan". In linescan sensors, there is a single row of pixels. You capture the image one row at a time. A TDI sensor works the same way as a linescan, capturing the image one row at a time. However, the difference is that there are more rows of pixels on the sensor. The electrons are moved through the sensor at the same rate that the image moves across it. This means you can get longer integration times per row, without decreasing the speed of the sensor readout.
Dalsa has a website that describes the different types of sensors and has diagrams that explain the functioning of TDI sensors.
The Dalsa sensor itself is not 60mm x 170mm. It is 60mm tall, and scans across an area 170mm long. The sensor itself actually pans across the back of the camera, to capture the entire image.
Yes, the areas where more than 8MPix are not consumer level. However, at 30,000 euros, this camera is also _not_ consumer level. The people that are buying these cameras are the same people that will be making enormous billboards and posters. There is a market for these cameras, it's just not the general public.
denisbergeron is correct. If you look at the specs, it says the sensor is a "TDI" sensor. This sensor scans across the focal plane of the camera. It is 7500 pixels tall, with 2500 each R, G and B pixels. The full pixel colour is interpolated for each pixel.
I think it's neat that they use the same "digital back" module on a 360 degree panoramic camera. The camera rotates at a constant rate, and the sensor can then capture the 360 degree image.
The only thing to watch out for with the 160MPix camera is the rolling shutter. One side of the image will be captured almost immediately, but the other side will be captured 1 second later (at max speed, max resolution). With moving subjects, this can lead to lots of strange image artefacts - squishing or stretching, multiple images, etc. Their website has a couple of images where this effect has been used artistically, but a tripod would be absolutely required to take a decent image of a still subject.
Since pixels need to collect photons in order to generate the electrons that form an image, the smaller you make them, the less responsive they are. With smaller and smaller pixels, you either need longer exposure times (opening yourself up to blur if the subject is moving), or larger lenses (which cost mucho mucho dinero). People are already making pixels at 2.5um pitch. You are unlikely to see any further major reduction in that size, given the constraints of responsivity.
For blue LEDs used by case modders. Why bother when the chips are flashing all by themselves.
Well, probably not 14 gallons unless you're really sedentary, but if someone walks two miles a day, and uses one fluid ounce of shampoo every day, that's 150 fl.oz., or almost 1.2 gallons.
Ha! If you make it to the very end, you'll find that D2L is counter-suing for five things, amongst which are:
The court dismiss Blackboard's request for relief
The court find the patent unenforceable
The court find the patent invalid
Attorney and legal fees for D2L's defense of this case
any other fines that the court deems appropriate
Man, I hope they win.
If you do a cost-benefits analysis on replacing appliances with more energy-efficient models, you'll find that it's usually not worth it, unless the old appliance is already at the end of their life.
Say you have a fridge that cost $800 to buy, and you've had it for 10 years. If you think it will last another 10 years (not unlikely), then by throwing it out now, you're throwing out $400 worth of value (using a gross simplification). How many kWh would you have to save over the next 10 years to add up to that $400? And if you're looking at just the energy consumption of the device, from a purely environmental standpoint, throwing out a fridge only halfway through its life is throwing away half of the energy used in its production. This is not an inconsequential amount.
While I heartily agree with replacing dead appliances with more energy-efficient ones, I do recommend some deeper analysis before any functioning ones are thrown out to make room for newer things.
I suspect that he would run out of buildings tall enough to use before he crashed into them. I can see arcing back and forth across a street as a plausible mode of transport, but really, how many blocks can you go before you're out in the 3 and 4 storey buildings?
(caveat - I've never been to New York, but in Toronto you'd be able to go about three city blocks, straight up Bay Street, and nowhere else).