I'm not making an assertion, I'm relating a fact, a fact that you can easily verify and that's pretty central to Jobs, NeXT, Apple and open source history.
No, I'm not going to provide a "citation". Stop being so intellectually lazy.
Are you f*cking serious? Do you know anything about computers? Sun's workstations from the early 1980's were using Multibus, as in multi-processor and multi-master DMA, an IEEE 796 standard created in 1974. Just about every workstation since the 1970's was using DMA.
Sun was the jerk because they kept misrepresenting what Java was and what they were going to do with it in order to get industry support. They pulled out of standardization efforts and bullied other companies with outrageous legal threats, all the while running Java into the ground technically and having an army of contributors fix their problems for them under exploitative licensing terms. They had everybody by their balls.
Android Inc decided to implement their own version of Java, in part because many of the people there had been jerked around by Sun's lawyers before and they weren't going to let Sun do that to them again.
All Google did was buy Android a couple of years after it had been founded. It's hard to see how you can blame them for any of this.
The jerkiness of Google is they went against the direct wishes of the creator of the project.
The creator of the project (Sun) had promised to make Java an open ISO and ECMA standard. That's why people initially adopted it.
After several years, all of that turned out to have been a lie.
Sun decided they wanted to make Java open source, but took measures to make sure any new implementation would be compatible.
Just because Sun decides they own or control something doesn't mean they do.
Then Google decided to make an incompatible version, apparently to avoid the J2ME license issues, but for whatever reason, they made it incompatible. Not cool.
Google didn't decide to make an incompatible version, Android Inc. did.
Android Inc did this before Sun released Java under an open source license.
Android Inc decided to do this because Sun had already screwed them once before on J2ME
Making Android compatible with J2ME would have made no sense; J2ME was a lousy design.
The only thing that's been "not cool" is Sun's long string of lies, their technical ineptness and mismanagement, and Oracle's attempt to establish API copyrights. Everybody else is just trying to dig out from under the consequences of their mess, deceptions and trolling.
3. dalvik was written because Google didn't want to implement java to their license, not because they couldn't.
AFAIK, Dalvik was created before Google purchased Android. And the developers of Android developed Dalvik because Sun had screwed them over before when they were using the JVM on their previous projects.
License for what? What exactly do you think Sun/Oracle owns that Android should have licensed?
everybody can use Java IP as long as they implement at least one Java standard.
That requires them to pay money to Oracle. Furthermore, the original promise of Java was that it was going to be an open standard; Sun kept reneging on that promise.
Yeah, and his cool box was built out of a whole bunch of technologies (Objective-C, Smalltalk, MVC, DisplayPostscript, WYSIWYG) and open source software (Mach, BSD, GNU compiler) created by others, which he then promptly attempted to make proprietary and whose licenses he attempted to violate. I can't actually think of a single major technical contribution of NeXT. Steve Jobs was a talented product designers, but he had no scruples.
That's what the Bayer sensor does. But it can only go so far, because your brain can trick you into not noticing that there is something missing, but the same information missing in an actual photograph will be completely obvious.
Also, the human eye actually isn't all that sensitive in color. In low light, your eyes switch to more sensitive black-and-white receptors. So, "doing what the human eye does" would mean taking only B/W photographs in low light.
An f-stop here, an f-stop there, soon you're talking a big difference.
Backlit sensors, new CMOS technologies, this kind of filter, image stabilization, better image processing, etc.: it's the combination of these 1-2 f-stop advances that in aggregate has really pushed photography much further.
Don't believe all the marketing hype. The Foveon sensor failed because it was not technically superior; it gave you lower resolution, less sensitivity, and worse color reproduction than comparable sensors based on Bayer patterns. The one problem it addressed, namely occasional bad color reproduction around edges with Bayer sensors, simply didn't matter enough to make up for its disadvantages.
But like your eyes, for the purposes of recording colors, you don't have to actually record red, green, and blue. You can replicate the same frequency response spectrum using photoreceptors sensitive to any 3 different colors
Mathematically, a spectrum is an infinite dimensional vector space and any three color sensors will pick out a three dimensional subspace. In general, you cannot reproduce the response in one three dimensional subspace (human response) from another three dimensional subspace (camera response). It doesn't matter how much computation you throw at it, the information is just lost.
The more a camera deviates from the sensitivities of human cones, the more likely it is that you will get unnatural color reproduction. Most real-world spectra are fairly smooth, which is why cameras can get away with using filters that differ from the human eye. But there are lighting situations and surfaces where it makes a real difference.
That's wrong too. For example, if your image consists of widely spaced point light sources, it isn't low-pass filtered, but you still don't need or want an anti-aliasing filter to reconstruct the position of the point light sources. Not only don't you need an anti-aliasing filter, the image will look better without it. That's the case in astrophotography.
Whether you need anti-aliasing filters depends on what kinds of pictures you take, what you know about the scene, and what you are trying to get out.
There is really also no "R" in the color spectrum; anything a digital camera captures is going to involve measuring the response of some wide band color filter. Terms like "R", "cyan", and "white" describe roughly what kind of filter we are talking about, enough so that people get an idea of how this and other cameras work.
As for Foveon, it measures "RGB" directly at each pixel, but that's a bad tradeoff: it gives you lower resolution than interpolation, loses a lot of light, and actually doesn't give you much control over the spectral response. And what I really find annoying about "Foveon" is that the name suggests that it has something to do with the "fovea", when in reality a Bayer sensor actually works much more like the human eye.
X11 isn't so bad. The current server is messy and some code and parts of the protocol should be deprecated. But these projects are all trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and that's why they are all likely doomed to fail..
Most of these splits tend to be over unresolvable issues. They are an indication that a project has hit a dead end. In the end, society wins when such projects die, and this is how they die.
I expect we will be using x11 for a long time to come.
It's only "very, very hard" because people have an inflated sense of safety when a human is in charge. People can regularly cause accidents, but a single error by a machine will threaten the entire technology.
If it were up to VW, no advanced technology would ever be ready for the showroom. The company likes to tinker around the edges of existing technology and charge huge amounts of money for it. And Germany isn't going to allow anything that new-fangled on its roads anyway.
True innovation will have to come from other companies in other countries. There are easy ways of getting useful self-driving tech into cars right now, with little of the complications of Google, no laser 3D scanners, and little risk. All it takes is a desire to do so and some political will.
This is the proverbial rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The JVM still sucks and as a results things like lambdas don't function correctly. The type system and templates still don't work correctly. The libraries are still as bloated as ever. And no sane person would trust Java security anymore.
which in my view is wasted land that could have been used to reduce the environmental footprint of having everything shipped over
Population density along the entire MTA Harlem line is high by national standards. I'm sorry it doesn't meet with your approval and that other people don't choose to live the same kind of wasteful and self-righteous lifestyle you live.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not making an assertion, I'm relating a fact, a fact that you can easily verify and that's pretty central to Jobs, NeXT, Apple and open source history.
No, I'm not going to provide a "citation". Stop being so intellectually lazy.
Well, if you call "bullshit" on it, it simply means that you are an uneducated, ignorant lout.
Are you f*cking serious? Do you know anything about computers? Sun's workstations from the early 1980's were using Multibus, as in multi-processor and multi-master DMA, an IEEE 796 standard created in 1974. Just about every workstation since the 1970's was using DMA.
You know Google? Use it. It takes a minute to find to find the background on GCC, Objective-C, and Jobs.
Yes, it is about being a jerk.
Sun was the jerk because they kept misrepresenting what Java was and what they were going to do with it in order to get industry support. They pulled out of standardization efforts and bullied other companies with outrageous legal threats, all the while running Java into the ground technically and having an army of contributors fix their problems for them under exploitative licensing terms. They had everybody by their balls.
Android Inc decided to implement their own version of Java, in part because many of the people there had been jerked around by Sun's lawyers before and they weren't going to let Sun do that to them again.
All Google did was buy Android a couple of years after it had been founded. It's hard to see how you can blame them for any of this.
The creator of the project (Sun) had promised to make Java an open ISO and ECMA standard. That's why people initially adopted it.
After several years, all of that turned out to have been a lie.
Just because Sun decides they own or control something doesn't mean they do.
Google didn't decide to make an incompatible version, Android Inc. did.
Android Inc did this before Sun released Java under an open source license.
Android Inc decided to do this because Sun had already screwed them once before on J2ME
Making Android compatible with J2ME would have made no sense; J2ME was a lousy design.
The only thing that's been "not cool" is Sun's long string of lies, their technical ineptness and mismanagement, and Oracle's attempt to establish API copyrights. Everybody else is just trying to dig out from under the consequences of their mess, deceptions and trolling.
AFAIK, Dalvik was created before Google purchased Android. And the developers of Android developed Dalvik because Sun had screwed them over before when they were using the JVM on their previous projects.
License for what? What exactly do you think Sun/Oracle owns that Android should have licensed?
That requires them to pay money to Oracle. Furthermore, the original promise of Java was that it was going to be an open standard; Sun kept reneging on that promise.
Yeah, and his cool box was built out of a whole bunch of technologies (Objective-C, Smalltalk, MVC, DisplayPostscript, WYSIWYG) and open source software (Mach, BSD, GNU compiler) created by others, which he then promptly attempted to make proprietary and whose licenses he attempted to violate. I can't actually think of a single major technical contribution of NeXT. Steve Jobs was a talented product designers, but he had no scruples.
That's what the Bayer sensor does. But it can only go so far, because your brain can trick you into not noticing that there is something missing, but the same information missing in an actual photograph will be completely obvious.
Also, the human eye actually isn't all that sensitive in color. In low light, your eyes switch to more sensitive black-and-white receptors. So, "doing what the human eye does" would mean taking only B/W photographs in low light.
An f-stop here, an f-stop there, soon you're talking a big difference.
Backlit sensors, new CMOS technologies, this kind of filter, image stabilization, better image processing, etc.: it's the combination of these 1-2 f-stop advances that in aggregate has really pushed photography much further.
That's what they are doing.
Don't believe all the marketing hype. The Foveon sensor failed because it was not technically superior; it gave you lower resolution, less sensitivity, and worse color reproduction than comparable sensors based on Bayer patterns. The one problem it addressed, namely occasional bad color reproduction around edges with Bayer sensors, simply didn't matter enough to make up for its disadvantages.
Mathematically, a spectrum is an infinite dimensional vector space and any three color sensors will pick out a three dimensional subspace. In general, you cannot reproduce the response in one three dimensional subspace (human response) from another three dimensional subspace (camera response). It doesn't matter how much computation you throw at it, the information is just lost.
The more a camera deviates from the sensitivities of human cones, the more likely it is that you will get unnatural color reproduction. Most real-world spectra are fairly smooth, which is why cameras can get away with using filters that differ from the human eye. But there are lighting situations and surfaces where it makes a real difference.
That's wrong too. For example, if your image consists of widely spaced point light sources, it isn't low-pass filtered, but you still don't need or want an anti-aliasing filter to reconstruct the position of the point light sources. Not only don't you need an anti-aliasing filter, the image will look better without it. That's the case in astrophotography.
Whether you need anti-aliasing filters depends on what kinds of pictures you take, what you know about the scene, and what you are trying to get out.
There is really also no "R" in the color spectrum; anything a digital camera captures is going to involve measuring the response of some wide band color filter. Terms like "R", "cyan", and "white" describe roughly what kind of filter we are talking about, enough so that people get an idea of how this and other cameras work.
As for Foveon, it measures "RGB" directly at each pixel, but that's a bad tradeoff: it gives you lower resolution than interpolation, loses a lot of light, and actually doesn't give you much control over the spectral response. And what I really find annoying about "Foveon" is that the name suggests that it has something to do with the "fovea", when in reality a Bayer sensor actually works much more like the human eye.
X11 isn't so bad. The current server is messy and some code and parts of the protocol should be deprecated. But these projects are all trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and that's why they are all likely doomed to fail..
Most of these splits tend to be over unresolvable issues. They are an indication that a project has hit a dead end. In the end, society wins when such projects die, and this is how they die.
I expect we will be using x11 for a long time to come.
There are plenty of automatic parking garages:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=automatic+parking+garage
It's only "very, very hard" because people have an inflated sense of safety when a human is in charge. People can regularly cause accidents, but a single error by a machine will threaten the entire technology.
If it were up to VW, no advanced technology would ever be ready for the showroom. The company likes to tinker around the edges of existing technology and charge huge amounts of money for it. And Germany isn't going to allow anything that new-fangled on its roads anyway.
True innovation will have to come from other companies in other countries. There are easy ways of getting useful self-driving tech into cars right now, with little of the complications of Google, no laser 3D scanners, and little risk. All it takes is a desire to do so and some political will.
People have wanted that for more than a decade; don't hold your breath.
Java has been evolving quite rapidly, with major new language features in every major release.
This is the proverbial rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The JVM still sucks and as a results things like lambdas don't function correctly. The type system and templates still don't work correctly. The libraries are still as bloated as ever. And no sane person would trust Java security anymore.
Population density along the entire MTA Harlem line is high by national standards. I'm sorry it doesn't meet with your approval and that other people don't choose to live the same kind of wasteful and self-righteous lifestyle you live.
I know all I need to know, from your own words.