Precisely correct! And I wish more people on/. would realise that US law does not apply in other jurisdictions.
The real problem with the site is, as anybody who knows Irish law knows, Irish defamation, slander and libel law is very strong, arguably too strong, and is often used by individuals to prevent news coverage of something that involves. That's the law that applies here, and why the site is under fire.
At first I was going to say you know that it can, then you proceed to list two sources that have no bearing on stereo vision. Even more, to the degree that 3D can be approximated in 2d, "stereo vision" would be of no help whatsoever.
Not directly, but they do teach you things about how the brain comprehends depth. That is what I was getting at, not stereo vision.
However, in my technical drawing classes, stereo vision was one of the things we studied at honours level. One of the projects I did (and part of the reason I learned more about graphics), was what you could describe as a computerised stereoscope to demonstrate stereo vision.
If I concentrate, I can get my depth perception to improve. If I have my mind on aspects of depth perception it improves.
But that's because you're consciously compensating from the lack of cues you'd get if you'd full stereo vision. I'm astigmatic, which negatively affects my ability to perceive depth, both impairing my ability to focus my eye sufficiently well to take full advantage of stereo vision and focus-based cues. Concentrating helps, but what's critical here is that what's happening is that you're just using extra brainpower to compensate for cues you have difficultly perceiving.
And no, the glasses have never worked for me either.
I'm tired and about to go to bed, so I'll read the article in a few hours and get back to you with a reply.
Well, unless you're physiologically different from the rest of humanity, one shouldn't need to.:-)
Now, I happen to know that stereo vision plays a huge part in depth perception from two source. Firstly, I did technical drawing in secondary school, and one of the things we studied was perspective projection. My other source was in applying what I learned to writing a graphics engine. I might not be an expert, but I've picked up a thing or two, and I check what I'm taught if possible by experimenting.
If you don't have stereo vision, you have to use less powerful cues, such as motion, brightness, knowledge-based heuristics, &c., but all of these are far less potent than stereo vision. You're probably being tricked into thinking closing one eye gives you better depth perception by the fact that one of your eyes--the one you're keeping open--is stronger than the other.
You're also wrong when it comes to hologram: while they appear flat, they are, in fact, embossed on a sliver of some reflective material and rely on defraction to scatter the light rays in such a way that the eyes are tricked into seeing a 3D image. But if you've no depth perception, the resulting image looks somewhat flat unless either you or the image are moved.
But what it is is the best method the brain has for depth perception. Where hackwrench is wrong is when they state "but I close one eye and I can perceive depth perhaps even better", which is plainly wrong. All that's happening is they're losing a cue, and a powerful one at that.
You obviously haven't read up on the ARM, have you. You should, if only to learn what a truly elegant instruction set looks like. The ARM3 was a thing of pure beauty...
ARM was never like that. Unlike their parent company, Acorn, it was both a company of brilliant engineers and was always highly profitable. In later days, Acorn's share in ARM was all that kept it from going under.
AMULET? Mod the parent up for remembering that! They had working prototypes of that back in 1990, if I remember correctly. Lesseee... I'll play karma whore and post a Wikipedia like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMULET_microprocessor
Markov chains are a Markov model, and I know of at least one lossless compression algorithm that uses them (LZMA).
And for an explaination of how DEFLATE uses both LZ77 and Huffman coding, read this: http://www.zlib.org/feldspar.html, or you can read the RFC or the zlib source.
Huffman coding and arithmetic coding are both entropy encoding algorithms. While perfectly fine compression algorithms in their own right, they're also commonly used to squeeze the last bits of entropy out of a data stream produced by another compression or transformation algorithm. Arithmetic coding suffers from chilling effects caused by IBM patents, and so isn't as commonly used as it might. An unencumbered alternative is range encoding, which gives performance not too far off that of arithmetic coding. Range encoding and arithmetic coding are both variants of the same basic technique of entropy encoding. That said, the compression difference between huffman coding and arithmetic coding is minimal. I think (though I'm not entirely sure), entropy encoding might be a subset of a larger family of algorithms called markov modelling.
LZW is a refinement on LZ78, which has other variants such as LZSS. It is a dictionary coding algorithm. Similarly, the DEFLATE algorithm is based on LZ77, another variant of dictionary coding. gzip uses DEFLATE, as does xZip and PNG. DEFLATE first compresses the stream with an LZ77 variant, and then compresses the resulting stream with huffman coding to squeeze out some redundancy. LZW is no longer covered by patents, at least not here in Europe.
So what you wrote about huffman coding, arithmetic coding and LZW was largely misinformed. There are two lossless methods: entropy encoding and dictionary coding, huffman coding and arithmetic coding representing the former and LZW representing the latter. Some compression algorithms combine the two, DEFLATE being an example.
Don't worry: I was around for that, that's for sure! The point I was trying to make, however, was that disruptive technologies tend to be small tweaks on what already exists. If fact, if you go and read the FTP RFC, it's explicitly described as a file sharing protocol. Napster was such a technology: one small but significant modification to FTP's model changes everything. But it was far from out of the blue.
Now, if it *had* been out of the blue, *then* it'd deserved the caps.
The book you're looking for is "Database Systems: A Practical Approach to Design, Implementation and Management by Thomas Connolly, Carolyn Begg, et al. It cover practically everything from theory to practice. My copy dates back to '98 and I don't think I'd ever give it away. Its coverage of relational algebra is very good.
Ignore the negative reviews in Amazon, by the way. It was one of my undergraduate degree texts and had no problems with it. And of course, considering that the negative reviews seem to be pissed at it because (a) it covers the theory properly; (b) it's written by a bunch of Scots, so it's "British" and that's apparently bad - I don't know how we survive over on this side of the pond with all those terrible American books;-); (c) it isn't like a Dietel & Dietel book, and that's somehow a bad thing; (d) they were looking for Databases and SQL for Dummies and discovered that this wasn't it. The only relevant criticism made is that it's a little wordy. Ah well.
Napster was really just FTP backwards, its "Soviet Russia" so to speak: In Soviet Russia, the server downloads from YOU! I don't think it was that big a jump.
Re:Why are we hiding from the police, daddy?
on
Vim 6.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
The conclusion most will draw from your argument rests on a faulty implication: that vi was intended to be more featureful than Notepad.
Anyone who drew that conclusion would be utterly wrong. I'm comparing vi (as in Vim) and Notepad as they are today, and how they've changed naturally since they were first conceived. Vi began as an attempt to put a much friendlier face on ex whereas Notepad started out as a basic text editor. That said, vi's ex heritage, while a barrier to immediate usability, gave it a great deal of power for doing heavy text-editing from its birth.
Vi isn't as "easy to use" as Notepad because Bill Joy lacked the technology. Notepad isn't as "powerful" as vi because Microsoft lacked the concern.
Yup.
None of this stopped Richard Stallman, who put everything into emacs. But then, nothing stopped Richard Stallman, who put way too much into emacs, and suggested the problem was that you lacked two extra fingers and an eidetic memory for command strings and an understanding of the obvious need for operating-system internals in a text editor...
That's an argument for another day, and not one that I'm particularly interested in. I might have been defending vi above, and I might use it quite a bit, but I'm an editor agnostic, or better yet, an editor apatheist.;-)
Re:Why are we hiding from the police, daddy?
on
Vim 6.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
Never used Moe and don't know anything about it, but everything I said about Vim can be said about Emacs.
Re:Why are we hiding from the police, daddy?
on
Vim 6.4 Released
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Have you read Neal Stevenson's "In the Beginning Was the Command Line"? If you had, you wouldn't be spouting this nonsense.
In it, he compares two devices: a heavy duty industrial drill called the Hole Hawg, and your basic power drill. Both do the same thing--drill holes--but their intent is different. The Hole Hawg is designed to drill through anything, whereas the regular power drill is designed for household use. The power drill lacks the power of the Hole Hawg, but has safety features that the Hole Hawg can't afford to have because of this. Whereas the Hole Hawg will keep spinning if it hits something hard (and therefore requires a large amount of strength to keep steady), whereas the power drill will slow down if it encounters too much resistance.
Similarly, Vim is the Hole Hawg of text editors, whereas notepad is a regular powerdrill. Both have different intentions, with the former being designed for heavy-duty text editing as a programmer or highly technical user would need, and the latter designed for occasional light editing, the kind most non-technical users do. The intent is different and so the interfaces differ.
It's very, very difficult to create a deep, powerful interface that is easily discoverable. At best, you can make it as learnable as possible. This is what Vim attempts to do. Notepad goes for a shallow, easily discoverable interface at the expense of power.
Now, while I agree that it won't be using OF, it doesn't say it'll be using BIOS either. For all we know, they could be developing an entirely new firmware system.
Of course not. It doesn't even use the latest stable build of Gecko. Firefox != Gecko. The work on getting Gecko compliant enough to render the Acid2 test properly is ongoing.
When Firefox 1.1 comes out, that'll use the most up-to-date build of Gecko, and it'll stay synchronised with it from now on, which it hasn't been up till now.
Slashdot Mirror
Precisely correct! And I wish more people on
The real problem with the site is, as anybody who knows Irish law knows, Irish defamation, slander and libel law is very strong, arguably too strong, and is often used by individuals to prevent news coverage of something that involves. That's the law that applies here, and why the site is under fire.
At first I was going to say you know that it can, then you proceed to list two sources that have no bearing on stereo vision. Even more, to the degree that 3D can be approximated in 2d, "stereo vision" would be of no help whatsoever.
Not directly, but they do teach you things about how the brain comprehends depth. That is what I was getting at, not stereo vision.
However, in my technical drawing classes, stereo vision was one of the things we studied at honours level. One of the projects I did (and part of the reason I learned more about graphics), was what you could describe as a computerised stereoscope to demonstrate stereo vision.
If I concentrate, I can get my depth perception to improve. If I have my mind on aspects of depth perception it improves.
But that's because you're consciously compensating from the lack of cues you'd get if you'd full stereo vision. I'm astigmatic, which negatively affects my ability to perceive depth, both impairing my ability to focus my eye sufficiently well to take full advantage of stereo vision and focus-based cues. Concentrating helps, but what's critical here is that what's happening is that you're just using extra brainpower to compensate for cues you have difficultly perceiving.
And no, the glasses have never worked for me either.
I'm tired and about to go to bed, so I'll read the article in a few hours and get back to you with a reply.
Well, unless you're physiologically different from the rest of humanity, one shouldn't need to. :-)
Now, I happen to know that stereo vision plays a huge part in depth perception from two source. Firstly, I did technical drawing in secondary school, and one of the things we studied was perspective projection. My other source was in applying what I learned to writing a graphics engine. I might not be an expert, but I've picked up a thing or two, and I check what I'm taught if possible by experimenting.
If you don't have stereo vision, you have to use less powerful cues, such as motion, brightness, knowledge-based heuristics, &c., but all of these are far less potent than stereo vision. You're probably being tricked into thinking closing one eye gives you better depth perception by the fact that one of your eyes--the one you're keeping open--is stronger than the other.
You're also wrong when it comes to hologram: while they appear flat, they are, in fact, embossed on a sliver of some reflective material and rely on defraction to scatter the light rays in such a way that the eyes are tricked into seeing a 3D image. But if you've no depth perception, the resulting image looks somewhat flat unless either you or the image are moved.
But what it is is the best method the brain has for depth perception. Where hackwrench is wrong is when they state "but I close one eye and I can perceive depth perhaps even better", which is plainly wrong. All that's happening is they're losing a cue, and a powerful one at that.
Forgive the karma whoring: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=63532
Specify a voltage, and I'm sure somebody'll come up with the numbers.
You obviously haven't read up on the ARM, have you. You should, if only to learn what a truly elegant instruction set looks like. The ARM3 was a thing of pure beauty...
ARM was never like that. Unlike their parent company, Acorn, it was both a company of brilliant engineers and was always highly profitable. In later days, Acorn's share in ARM was all that kept it from going under.
AMULET? Mod the parent up for remembering that! They had working prototypes of that back in 1990, if I remember correctly. Lesseee... I'll play karma whore and post a Wikipedia like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMULET_microprocessor
Uh, no. The information isn't centralised on a small number of machines, it's on each user's machine. Re-read it.
Markov chains are a Markov model, and I know of at least one lossless compression algorithm that uses them (LZMA).
And for an explaination of how DEFLATE uses both LZ77 and Huffman coding, read this: http://www.zlib.org/feldspar.html, or you can read the RFC or the zlib source.
Huffman coding and arithmetic coding are both entropy encoding algorithms. While perfectly fine compression algorithms in their own right, they're also commonly used to squeeze the last bits of entropy out of a data stream produced by another compression or transformation algorithm. Arithmetic coding suffers from chilling effects caused by IBM patents, and so isn't as commonly used as it might. An unencumbered alternative is range encoding, which gives performance not too far off that of arithmetic coding. Range encoding and arithmetic coding are both variants of the same basic technique of entropy encoding. That said, the compression difference between huffman coding and arithmetic coding is minimal. I think (though I'm not entirely sure), entropy encoding might be a subset of a larger family of algorithms called markov modelling.
LZW is a refinement on LZ78, which has other variants such as LZSS. It is a dictionary coding algorithm. Similarly, the DEFLATE algorithm is based on LZ77, another variant of dictionary coding. gzip uses DEFLATE, as does xZip and PNG. DEFLATE first compresses the stream with an LZ77 variant, and then compresses the resulting stream with huffman coding to squeeze out some redundancy. LZW is no longer covered by patents, at least not here in Europe.
So what you wrote about huffman coding, arithmetic coding and LZW was largely misinformed. There are two lossless methods: entropy encoding and dictionary coding, huffman coding and arithmetic coding representing the former and LZW representing the latter. Some compression algorithms combine the two, DEFLATE being an example.
Don't worry: I was around for that, that's for sure! The point I was trying to make, however, was that disruptive technologies tend to be small tweaks on what already exists. If fact, if you go and read the FTP RFC, it's explicitly described as a file sharing protocol. Napster was such a technology: one small but significant modification to FTP's model changes everything. But it was far from out of the blue.
Now, if it *had* been out of the blue, *then* it'd deserved the caps.
Ignore the negative reviews in Amazon, by the way. It was one of my undergraduate degree texts and had no problems with it. And of course, considering that the negative reviews seem to be pissed at it because (a) it covers the theory properly; (b) it's written by a bunch of Scots, so it's "British" and that's apparently bad - I don't know how we survive over on this side of the pond with all those terrible American books ;-); (c) it isn't like a Dietel & Dietel book, and that's somehow a bad thing; (d) they were looking for Databases and SQL for Dummies and discovered that this wasn't it. The only relevant criticism made is that it's a little wordy. Ah well.
Napster was really just FTP backwards, its "Soviet Russia" so to speak: In Soviet Russia, the server downloads from YOU! I don't think it was that big a jump.
Never used Moe and don't know anything about it, but everything I said about Vim can be said about Emacs.
Have you read Neal Stevenson's "In the Beginning Was the Command Line"? If you had, you wouldn't be spouting this nonsense.
Seriously, go read this section: http://tinyurl.com/9qukb
In it, he compares two devices: a heavy duty industrial drill called the Hole Hawg, and your basic power drill. Both do the same thing--drill holes--but their intent is different. The Hole Hawg is designed to drill through anything, whereas the regular power drill is designed for household use. The power drill lacks the power of the Hole Hawg, but has safety features that the Hole Hawg can't afford to have because of this. Whereas the Hole Hawg will keep spinning if it hits something hard (and therefore requires a large amount of strength to keep steady), whereas the power drill will slow down if it encounters too much resistance.
Similarly, Vim is the Hole Hawg of text editors, whereas notepad is a regular powerdrill. Both have different intentions, with the former being designed for heavy-duty text editing as a programmer or highly technical user would need, and the latter designed for occasional light editing, the kind most non-technical users do. The intent is different and so the interfaces differ.
It's very, very difficult to create a deep, powerful interface that is easily discoverable. At best, you can make it as learnable as possible. This is what Vim attempts to do. Notepad goes for a shallow, easily discoverable interface at the expense of power.
Japanese women aren't exactly noted for their buxomness. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Now, while I agree that it won't be using OF, it doesn't say it'll be using BIOS either. For all we know, they could be developing an entirely new firmware system.
IBM's still bigger than MS: they'd eat billg and co for lunch in a "merger".
Of course not. It doesn't even use the latest stable build of Gecko. Firefox != Gecko. The work on getting Gecko compliant enough to render the Acid2 test properly is ongoing.
When Firefox 1.1 comes out, that'll use the most up-to-date build of Gecko, and it'll stay synchronised with it from now on, which it hasn't been up till now.
Nope, they'll be programming in Emacs' Lisp dialect. :-)
Wrong. You're confusing it with how Rugby came about.
Wow! That's news to me!