uh, it seems the fella musta done some API and schedule work with the other guys, because he mentions "getting together to try interfaces", and "my stuff is done on time".... implies both API and schedule, at least to some degree.
be sure to tell your projector engineering folks to include an optical spatial filter after the digital imaging element - this is needed to remove the "jaggies" that typical elements such as micromirrors (Texas Instruments) or DILAs (Hughes) produce.
most manufactures are IGNORING this problem.
but for natural images the pixel edges represent high frequency (spatial) noise that is above and beyond the information contained in the desired image (ie, Nyquist theorem) and therefore it can be filtered out.
this is the same process used in audio equipment, where filters are placed after the digital to analog convertor to remove the jagged steps in the waveform. works for audio, works for video. viewers won't realize the image is digital by means of awful jagged edges (which they HATE), but they'll be looking at a picture quality unobtainable from distribution film media.
i'm an engineer working in the refinement of HDTV compression technology, so i've studied all this, and i'm SERIOUSLY dissappointed that mfr's are not UP TO SPEED!
i'm so tired of seeing "blah blah" in the parenthetic note about free registration..
in fact, "blah blah" does not make the note shorter, which would really be the reason to say it! check it out:
"reg req'd" is all you need.
i don't understand when folks make it longer by adding "blah blah" onto the end. it's not like paraphrasing a EULA, where "blah blah" would really count!
WE ALREADY KNOW LINUX OWES IT ALL TO STALLMAN AND THE FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION!!
no need to be mad about folks calling it what they want to. i'm sure Canon doesn't like office workers calling Canon copiers "xeroxes", but there's nothing you can do - it's the way human language functions.
Linux has been a great part of Stallman's tremendous success in his goal of promulgating Free software. i think he's the one that needs to embrace reality about the name, and realize that we are already grateful to him (and so many others) even though we use "Linux" to refer to GNU systems with the Linux kernel.
yeah! RMS's got a stick up his -- well, he seems not to be able to relax. i blow my nose on kleenex - even though it's actually Weyerhauser Hygenic Paper Products Facial Tissue... after, all who doesn't know that GNU gave it all to Linux? who doesnt' type "gcc" to compile on Linux? you'd think success would be enough...
in general i support _both_ MS and open source OS choices - i feel that Microsoft's level of integration in their products is well worth a maintenance fee. but the article mentioned that the UK negotiated a savings of $150,000,000 over three years for 500,000 seats: that's $100 a year per seat savings, which means the fee was well over $100/year! that seems like a HUGE fee!! $5, or even $20 a seat/year would be more like it!
at that rate they won't keep me on their good side...
yes, Stallman is getting way off track about the cause of his woes... it's not a clash of egos at all! it's the way human language works: nouns are decided upon by the body of speakers, not by individuals.
in my native U.S., facial tissues are called "kleenex," regardless of the supplier: Scott, Kimberly-Clarke, Weyerhauser, or Kleenex...
the dude is fighting a force of nature - he's either going to die frustrated or come to terms with it.
i'd like to argue one point: assuming standard 1080 high by 1920 wide digital dimension, i have studies which point out that 35mm is notably better at first generation - the negative. but at the distrubution level, which is at least fourth generation, 1080x1920 with 10 bit luminance far exceeds 35mm in all aspects: spatial resolution, evenness of illumination, evenness of color balance, color saturation, contrast, noise.
provided, of course, the production is done properly!
the more interested you are in a specialty, or a specialized interest (ie, mechanical control, image processing, financial analysis, real time communication, acoustic modeling, etc) the more people know about what you are good at.
if you say, "i'll do anything!" then it sounds like you're not especially good at anything.
also i agree with the comment above, get a job through friends or relatives! the resume/cover letter route is SO HARD, i never got a job that way (which is to say i DID get them through relatives) until i had over 15 years experience. then i got the job i have now from resume submission.
right for PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION!
on
Sony PCG-U1
·
· Score: 1
this looks the right size to do some coding & testing while i'm on the bus! regular laptops way to cumbersome! you can compile & test on this as well as type...
AFAICT, the only 2 ways to "steal" GPL'd code are to acquire it from a vendor who wanted you to pay them, but don't pay them; or copy it from another of their customers who didn't want you to copy it.
if you acquire it from another of their customers (who wants you to) without paying the vendor, that is OK as long as that customer is willing to also provide source code (which they can get from the vendor). that's because the GPL allows any customer to give it away ("freely") once they rightfully own a copy - the whole point of the GPL!
so that makes it really hard to steal GPL'd software: you have to literally get it from someone who doesn't want you to get it from them. any other way you get it is OK.
staticengine above said this, but it wasn't emphasized as i would like:
it is NOT A TRAIN! it is a robotic AXIS OF MOTION!
and don't believe those commercials that claim a bagless vacuum is easier to deal with than the (now) old fashioned bags: it makes a MUCH smaller cloud of dust to drop a full dust bag in the garbage than to POUR OUT and SCRAPE OFF the dust from the bin and filter of a bagless!!!
don't know why these folks fail to see the issues here... boltar has the right idea:
1: the acceleration against the station will be cancelled by an opposite acceleration against the station when the 'train' stops. this will leave the station displaced from its orginal position. when you move the 'train' back to the start point, you'll displace the station the other way, getting the station back to where -it- started.
2: if you don't care about the small displacement of the station's orbit as you use the 'train', no need for thrusters. if you do care, you'll be counter-acting the train with thrusters.
i should think it wouldn't be a problem, practically speaking, unless a telescope is trying to point at a star, in which case just don't use the train until it's done. as far as keeping station on orbit i should think there are bigger problems than the displacements caused by the train.
that's boltar's real question: how tightly does the space station's orbit need to be controlled?
i just read the FAQ at the Biosphere 2 Columbia website, and the only problem (for survivability) they mentioned was a reduction of oxygen due to wrong salad of microbes in the soil and also the concrete was absorbing CO2 from the microbes which kind of disguised the problem. otherwise the FAQ made it sound like the habitation experiments were a tremendous success!
anyone know of any other reason why Biosphere 2 should be considered a failure? why not consider it a tremendous success?
aside from the fact the poor fellow needs to work with his local (ha-ha!) phone company on that line, you could make cheap little RS-485 echo boxes out of one chip and power them with solar-cell & battery. RS-485 allows (i think i remember rightly) about a kilometer between transmitter & receiver. that could be a nice repeater system, boxes stationed every kilometer along the line. the last station would have to be a computer with a modem to echo the data onto the phone system.
hopefully the telco ran at least two twisted pairs, otherwise a half duplex tx/rx protocol would be needed. that would require a state machine. which could still only be a PIC chip, so still quite feasible.
or, perhaps a little less practical, how about using some computers with two modems for repeaters? the modems could be put in leased-line mode to avoid the need for dial tones, and then perhaps you would only need a battery to power up the line between two stations. how far could the stations be apart? the signal would be decoded and regenerated each hop. seems like any basic routing software could be used to support PPP packet forwarding, or else some simple C program could be written to echo whatever comes in on a character-by-character basis.
let's write letters to MSoft so that they will donate software, which will avoid the license issue. too bad the Napalese are interested in small business skills on the PC's, since that dictates MSoft.
if they want to teach comp. sci., then they
should be pointed towards UNIXen, which avoids
the license issue.
SPARC cores are also reproduced for embedded applications - many digital cable/satellite TV set-top boxes run on C-Cube video CODEC chips which are organized around a microSPARC core...
i'm also interested in the idea of 'technology transfer' here, and also in the idea of 'ALPHA is not at the end of it's cycle' from a later message below.
in 1995 DEC prototyped a multithreaded version of ALPHA in their own lab (softare simulation only, AFAIK) - now it's been all in the news that INTEL is planning a multithreaded versions of the big processors. that may be where ground is fertile for technology transfer!
BTW, multithreading is a natural outgrowth of super-scaler design: as long as you have multiple compute units around, and it's impossible to keep them all busy from one thread anyway, why not schedule more that one thread through them? as long as you have a large array of registers to be renamed when the instructions complete for one thread, why not extend the renaming for multiple threads?
i remember in early 1980's that the breakthrough we were all talking about was that RISC moved management of the processor pipeline from hardware into the compiler. the compiler would be expected to schedule instructions to keep the hardware as busy as possible.
so the original pholosophy of RISC was to move _all_ complexity into the compiler, and simply allow the hardware to run light like the wind.
i think first gen RISC's followed that to a 'T',
but the philosophy was compromised in the super-scaler generation, because of comercial desire to retain machine code compatibility with the original generation. therefore the superscaler RISCs actually branched from the RISC track, and started providing scheduling in hardware again, for the super-scaler execution order.
i think VLIW came from a combining of the original RISC philosophy with the CISC micro-programming philosophy of providing as much as much parallelism as possible on the micro-instruction level. so: allow the compiler to gen code for the micro machine. it's a very RISC kind of idea, but with a more hardware oriented outlook.
man, this dude squirms out of practically every answer! even when he answers, he's either off-topic or vague!
probably thinks he's doing very accurate scientific research, but i think he's in the business of doing vague, slippy-slidey research - and he landed there 'cause he's exactly that kind of guy!
i do take it back about the prof. -- he didn't write the page, did he!
fact is, there was BAD DATA presented in the form of both WRONG CHARTS and WRONG EXAMPLES.
the author knew better than to operate the algorithm outside of the Gregorian bounds, hence the disclaimer, and yet the BAD WORK was included anyway! that deserves some good bashing! how hard could it be to draw a line and say, "the algorithm is not valid before HERE?"
you'd use the same receiver that comes with
the stuff, just a little more sensitive with
some special optics. you might be able to
make a sniffer with one of the regular recievers
by putting it behind one side of a pair of
binoculars, or other telescope.
if you have a B&W CCD camera, take the IR filter
out of it & have a look at the light beams.
CCD's are sensitive to near IR. you'll see that
the amount of light comming out of the senders
is tremendous.
Slashdot Mirror
i'm seconding the 'Adjustment' questions...
uh, it seems the fella musta done some API and schedule work with the other guys, because he mentions "getting together to try interfaces", and "my stuff is done on time".... implies both API and schedule, at least to some degree.
most manufactures are IGNORING this problem.
but for natural images the pixel edges represent high frequency (spatial) noise that is above and beyond the information contained in the desired image (ie, Nyquist theorem) and therefore it can be filtered out.
this is the same process used in audio equipment, where filters are placed after the digital to analog convertor to remove the jagged steps in the waveform. works for audio, works for video. viewers won't realize the image is digital by means of awful jagged edges (which they HATE), but they'll be looking at a picture quality unobtainable from distribution film media.
i'm an engineer working in the refinement of HDTV compression technology, so i've studied all this, and i'm SERIOUSLY dissappointed that mfr's are not UP TO SPEED!
in fact, "blah blah" does not make the note shorter, which would really be the reason to say it! check it out:
"reg req'd" is all you need.
i don't understand when folks make it longer by adding "blah blah" onto the end. it's not like paraphrasing a EULA, where "blah blah" would really count!
WE ALREADY KNOW LINUX OWES IT ALL TO STALLMAN AND THE FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION!!
no need to be mad about folks calling it what they want to. i'm sure Canon doesn't like office workers calling Canon copiers "xeroxes", but there's nothing you can do - it's the way human language functions.
Linux has been a great part of Stallman's tremendous success in his goal of promulgating Free software. i think he's the one that needs to embrace reality about the name, and realize that we are already grateful to him (and so many others) even though we use "Linux" to refer to GNU systems with the Linux kernel.
yeah! RMS's got a stick up his -- well, he seems not to be able to relax. i blow my nose on kleenex - even though it's actually Weyerhauser Hygenic Paper Products Facial Tissue... after, all who doesn't know that GNU gave it all to Linux? who doesnt' type "gcc" to compile on Linux? you'd think success would be enough...
at that rate they won't keep me on their good side...
in my native U.S., facial tissues are called "kleenex," regardless of the supplier: Scott, Kimberly-Clarke, Weyerhauser, or Kleenex...
the dude is fighting a force of nature - he's either going to die frustrated or come to terms with it.
i'd like to argue one point: assuming standard 1080 high by 1920 wide digital dimension, i have studies which point out that 35mm is notably better at first generation - the negative. but at the distrubution level, which is at least fourth generation, 1080x1920 with 10 bit luminance far exceeds 35mm in all aspects: spatial resolution, evenness of illumination, evenness of color balance, color saturation, contrast, noise.
provided, of course, the production is done properly!
if you say, "i'll do anything!" then it sounds like you're not especially good at anything.
also i agree with the comment above, get a job through friends or relatives! the resume/cover letter route is SO HARD, i never got a job that way (which is to say i DID get them through relatives) until i had over 15 years experience. then i got the job i have now from resume submission.
this looks the right size to do some coding & testing while i'm on the bus! regular laptops
way to cumbersome! you can compile & test on
this as well as type...
if you acquire it from another of their customers (who wants you to) without paying the vendor, that is OK as long as that customer is willing to also provide source code (which they can get from the vendor). that's because the GPL allows any customer to give it away ("freely") once they rightfully own a copy - the whole point of the GPL!
so that makes it really hard to steal GPL'd software: you have to literally get it from someone who doesn't want you to get it from them.
any other way you get it is OK.
as far a i can tell....
it is NOT A TRAIN! it is a robotic AXIS OF MOTION!
and don't believe those commercials that claim a bagless vacuum is easier to deal with than the (now) old fashioned bags: it makes a MUCH smaller cloud of dust to drop a full dust bag in the garbage than to POUR OUT and SCRAPE OFF the dust from the bin and filter of a bagless!!!
1: the acceleration against the station will be cancelled by an opposite acceleration against the station when the 'train' stops. this will leave the station displaced from its orginal position. when you move the 'train' back to the start point, you'll displace the station the other way, getting the station back to where -it- started.
2: if you don't care about the small displacement of the station's orbit as you use the 'train', no need for thrusters. if you do care, you'll be counter-acting the train with thrusters.
i should think it wouldn't be a problem, practically speaking, unless a telescope is trying to point at a star, in which case just don't use the train until it's done. as far as keeping station on orbit i should think there are bigger problems than the displacements caused by the train.
that's boltar's real question: how tightly does the space station's orbit need to be controlled?
anyone know of any other reason why Biosphere 2 should be considered a failure? why not consider it a tremendous success?
hopefully the telco ran at least two twisted pairs, otherwise a half duplex tx/rx protocol would be needed. that would require a state machine. which could still only be a PIC chip, so still quite feasible.
or, perhaps a little less practical, how about using some computers with two modems for repeaters? the modems could be put in leased-line mode to avoid the need for dial tones, and then perhaps you would only need a battery to power up the line between two stations. how far could the stations be apart? the signal would be decoded and regenerated each hop. seems like any basic routing software could be used to support PPP packet forwarding, or else some simple C program could be written to echo whatever comes in on a character-by-character basis.
if they want to teach comp. sci., then they
should be pointed towards UNIXen, which avoids
the license issue.
my UPN station broadcast from the WTC tower,
and they are still off the air!
so i didn't get to see the show BECAUSE of the
damn Sept. 11th attack!
(sleepy hollow, NY)
SPARC cores are also reproduced for embedded applications - many digital cable/satellite TV set-top boxes run on C-Cube video CODEC chips which are organized around a microSPARC core...
in 1995 DEC prototyped a multithreaded version of ALPHA in their own lab (softare simulation only, AFAIK) - now it's been all in the news that INTEL is planning a multithreaded versions of the big processors. that may be where ground is fertile for technology transfer!
BTW, multithreading is a natural outgrowth of super-scaler design: as long as you have multiple compute units around, and it's impossible to keep them all busy from one thread anyway, why not schedule more that one thread through them? as long as you have a large array of registers to be renamed when the instructions complete for one thread, why not extend the renaming for multiple threads?
i'm way big on that!
so the original pholosophy of RISC was to move _all_ complexity into the compiler, and simply allow the hardware to run light like the wind.
i think first gen RISC's followed that to a 'T', but the philosophy was compromised in the super-scaler generation, because of comercial desire to retain machine code compatibility with the original generation. therefore the superscaler RISCs actually branched from the RISC track, and started providing scheduling in hardware again, for the super-scaler execution order.
i think VLIW came from a combining of the original RISC philosophy with the CISC micro-programming philosophy of providing as much as much parallelism as possible on the micro-instruction level. so: allow the compiler to gen code for the micro machine. it's a very RISC kind of idea, but with a more hardware oriented outlook.
probably thinks he's doing very accurate scientific research, but i think he's in the business of doing vague, slippy-slidey research - and he landed there 'cause he's exactly that kind of guy!
fact is, there was BAD DATA presented in the form of both WRONG CHARTS and WRONG EXAMPLES.
the author knew better than to operate the algorithm outside of the Gregorian bounds, hence the disclaimer, and yet the BAD WORK was included anyway! that deserves some good bashing! how hard could it be to draw a line and say, "the algorithm is not valid before HERE?"
especially with the tone of that page being like, wow, this Dr. is so cool...
i still do like the algorithm, though, but minus cool points on the Dr. for not showing Ph. D. quality thoroughness on the date research...
you'd use the same receiver that comes with the stuff, just a little more sensitive with some special optics. you might be able to make a sniffer with one of the regular recievers by putting it behind one side of a pair of binoculars, or other telescope.
if you have a B&W CCD camera, take the IR filter out of it & have a look at the light beams. CCD's are sensitive to near IR. you'll see that the amount of light comming out of the senders is tremendous.
you could encrypt...