So AC would you care to comment on why the US and UK invaded Iraq? Are both goverments insane? Or did they have various information (correct and incorrect) plus various other factors provided to them?
By your terms both govs are totaly nuts. So now what was the motivation for them to do such a thing?
There was some ambiguity in those "chemical/biological weapons" stuff (if you are going to be generous).
Now compare that to the Nuclear situation. It is a fact that the US has massive numbers of ICBM's. That is not ambiguous.
It is quite odd that you mention San Fran as you will likely have to "rebuild that from the ground up" yet again. Faults are not good place to build a city if it were not for the massive natural resouces available.
If you opened your mind to the idea that some biofuels, such as wood, are replanted to maintain the supply; you may have realised that they take up the same amount of CO2 when growing as is released when burning them.
They have other disadvantages but CO2 release is not one.
The temperature of the UK is mostly governed by the Gulf Stream. If it changes course it gets very very cold. The UK has a latitude between 50 and 50 degrees N same as moscow and further north then new foundland.
The sensors in cameras are already many many times more sensitive to light then the rods in your eyes.
Sensors exist that can detect single photons (if properly cooled). However the sensors are not as flexible as the human eye. They tend to have a linear response to light intensity rather then the eyes Log response (rods and cones don't actually respond to the intensity of light but the signal generated by a change seems to be log) although some sensors exist that produce log outputs.
Sensors are hitting thier sensitivity limits (think low light photography) but that is in terms of sensor noise. The human eye has far more noise to but it has a massive chunk of grey matter behind it that really helps filter the noise out.
Another difference is that the cones in you eye do not respond to the intensity of light they respond to the change in the intensity of light. Sensors respond directly to the intensity of light.
So improving the sensitivity of a sensor is unlikely to have any much impact on normal photography, perhaps it may reduce the dark noise.
Its at most 1 atmosphere difference. Thats the equivalent of 10m or 30 foot of water. Most people do not need to decompress when surfacing from that depth. However having an ambient pressure of 0 bar has its own issues.
Especially since many drivers don't or won't drive at any where near those speeds.
The UK has a 70 mph speed limit (on motorways) for cars but lorries (trucks) and vehicles towing have a speed limit of 60 mph. Lorries have limiters to stop them exceeding that (and data loggers to ensure driver times are not exceeded). So, in the UK, there is always going to be traffic travelling at no more then 60 mph even though many car drivers exceed the speed 70mph speed limit by 20 to 40 mph (90 to 110 mph).
The concept of "if every one travels at the same speed (no matter what speed that is) they are safer" is just not true in the UK as not everyone can travel at the same speed.
Cars that have a max speed of 70 or 80 mph are quite common here.
Re:Against a Dark Background
on
Matter
·
· Score: 1
I felt that after I'd read it the first time. The second time I read it it made a lot more sense. The concept of a society that has time and again got to Culture levels of technology and then destroyed themselves because they cannot leave their solar system, gives the dark background.
You might want to add iron to your list of recyclables.
It is probably the most recycled material on the planet. All those cars, washing machines, structural girders, railtracks etc. You don't get quite the energy saving as you would with aluminium but the shear quanity of ferrous metals more that make up for that.
The problem is that you need to compute when your next keyframe needs to be created. You normally do this by computing frames from the last key frame (and then sequentially from each subsequent computed frame) until you reach the point at which the error in the calculated frame is too large. At this point you add a new key frame. This is a serial process (in terms of frames) so does not parallelise well.
There are some approaches to parallelise this but they do not scale well to large numbers of processes/threads/processors (while achieving optimal compression) and will quite often have to throw compued data away as it turns out not to be usefull (first thread decideds that a new key frame needed to be added some time before the second thread's key frame was started).
Parallel processing of each frame is feasible to a certain extent but there often has to be a lot of shared state between the "threads" as most video compression techniques have motion estimation in them. I.e. you can't simply split the image into regular, independent blocks and assign one block to each thread as motion prediction will cause "blocks" to move around the image. Shared state tends not to scale well (at best O(log n) often far worse) due to syhncronisation constraints.
Yes, if you can look back at an old project and still think its good then you haven't learned much since you did it. Hopefuly there will be little nuggets in there that still please you but over all you should have learned from your mistakes (and you will have made them).
It was captured digitaly. Or rather is was captured in as digital a manner as any pictures are. It was grabbed from a drum scanner. This had an analog front end from which the data was digitised. All digital cameras still have analog front ends. The readout from the CCD or CMOS sensor is always analog.
Admitidly it ain't a camera but it still set precident for the internet (porn).
In the past 10 or so years there has been a lot of research into sensors that have a log response to light levels. This allows a very high dynamic range scene to be compressed into 8 to 12 bit output which is about the noise limit for the electronics in cameras. However the sensors are based on CMOS tech rather then CCD (photoresistors rather then electron buckets) and as such tend to have large fixed pattern and thermal noise issues.
But yes, I don't really think it would work. It only works marginally well in ideal situations without low pass filters (that log(n) thing again). With low pass I doubt it would work at all. Although there is more information there. It depends on how much additional information that is and how it interacts with the log(n) limit. There is some information but not much.
However even with low pass filters the values at the offset sampling points will be different and could still be used to enhance the frequency range. Whether you could with mobile phones or not is engineering not theory:)
Another point is that most modern sampling systems do not have particularly effective low pass filtering prior to sampling. Analog filters take a fair bit of space even if they are surface mount or integrated into chips. Most devices rely on the filters in front end of the ADC (sometimes with a simple single pole low pass outside it). They then sample at a much higher frequency then they need and digitaly apply an 'ideal' (yeh I know they don't actually exist) low pass filter to get a very sharp cutoff (with low ringing) before subsampling to the required frequency. See oversampling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversampling.
Yes that true, but only for one source. If you have multiple 8khz signals whose sample points are not synchronized then you can combine them to improve the overall frequency range obtainable. However this would increase the final achivable frequency in proportion to the log of the number of sampling devices (under ideal situations) so you would need a fair few sources (If I remeber correctly). Mobile phones would probably be quite far from this ideal as they a) would be physically seperated so you'd have to perform some correlation first to remove the arbitrary time delays from the audio source to the phones and this would remove some of the resolution b) would not be sampling at the optimum times wrt each other (perfectly interleaved sampling).
A similar techique is used for images. An 8 bit camera can record, at best, 256 levels of grey. If you take multiple images of the same scene and average them together you can increase the effective number of grey levels you can reconstruct while also removing the effects of thermal noise. Doing similar with audio would not use averaging but would instead interleave the samples from the out of synch microphone ADC's.
I haven't yet come across a digibox that won't produce composite signals. They cost as little as £18 ($40). SD only in this country though.
The only advantage is that you get many more channels. I get 4 analog channels compared to about 45 digital tv channels. You also get about 30 digital radio channels via your tv.
The disadvantages are that you get drop outs and crashes in low signal areas (mostly for me when motorbikes go past (shitty ignition systems)). Low signal is generally about 50 to 60% signal quality on what ever monitor your box provides.
I live about 500 yards from the transmitter for most of these channels but I live at the bottom of the hill it is situated on and am therefore not in direct line of sight.
Slashdot Mirror
So AC would you care to comment on why the US and UK invaded Iraq? Are both goverments insane? Or did they have various information (correct and incorrect) plus various other factors provided to them?
By your terms both govs are totaly nuts. So now what was the motivation for them to do such a thing?
There was some ambiguity in those "chemical/biological weapons" stuff (if you are going to be generous).
Now compare that to the Nuclear situation. It is a fact that the US has massive numbers of ICBM's. That is not ambiguous.
It is quite odd that you mention San Fran as you will likely have to "rebuild that from the ground up" yet again. Faults are not good place to build a city if it were not for the massive natural resouces available.
Yes I read your other post.
These nations are making rational decisions. You just do not understand their motivations.
For Java dev it has to be Idea. It costs but is it does what you expect and none of that views/perspectives stuff.
If you opened your mind to the idea that some biofuels, such as wood, are replanted to maintain the supply; you may have realised that they take up the same amount of CO2 when growing as is released when burning them.
They have other disadvantages but CO2 release is not one.
What? you don't call it a crapper?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Crapper
There are still vineyards in britain.
The temperature of the UK is mostly governed by the Gulf Stream. If it changes course it gets very very cold.
The UK has a latitude between 50 and 50 degrees N same as moscow and further north then new foundland.
The sensors in cameras are already many many times more sensitive to light then the rods in your eyes.
Sensors exist that can detect single photons (if properly cooled). However the sensors are not as flexible as the human eye. They tend to have a linear response to light intensity rather then the eyes Log response (rods and cones don't actually respond to the intensity of light but the signal generated by a change seems to be log) although some sensors exist that produce log outputs.
Sensors are hitting thier sensitivity limits (think low light photography) but that is in terms of sensor noise. The human eye has far more noise to but it has a massive chunk of grey matter behind it that really helps filter the noise out.
Another difference is that the cones in you eye do not respond to the intensity of light they respond to the change in the intensity of light. Sensors respond directly to the intensity of light.
So improving the sensitivity of a sensor is unlikely to have any much impact on normal photography, perhaps it may reduce the dark noise.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html
matfud
Its at most 1 atmosphere difference. Thats the equivalent of 10m or 30 foot of water. Most people do not need to decompress when surfacing from that depth. However having an ambient pressure of 0 bar has its own issues.
Cos the size of the file can change while you are reading it.
Especially since many drivers don't or won't drive at any where near those speeds.
The UK has a 70 mph speed limit (on motorways) for cars but lorries (trucks) and vehicles towing have a speed limit of 60 mph. Lorries have limiters to stop them exceeding that (and data loggers to ensure driver times are not exceeded). So, in the UK, there is always going to be traffic travelling at no more then 60 mph even though many car drivers exceed the speed 70mph speed limit by 20 to 40 mph (90 to 110 mph).
The concept of "if every one travels at the same speed (no matter what speed that is) they are safer" is just not true in the UK as not everyone can travel at the same speed.
Cars that have a max speed of 70 or 80 mph are quite common here.
I felt that after I'd read it the first time. The second time I read it it made a lot more sense. The concept of a society that has time and again got to Culture levels of technology and then destroyed themselves because they cannot leave their solar system, gives the dark background.
A warship called "Xenophobe"
You might want to add iron to your list of recyclables.
It is probably the most recycled material on the planet. All those cars, washing machines, structural girders, railtracks etc. You don't get quite the energy saving as you would with aluminium but the shear quanity of ferrous metals more that make up for that.
matfud
The problem is that you need to compute when your next keyframe needs to be
created. You normally do this by computing frames from the last key frame (and
then sequentially from each subsequent computed frame) until you reach the
point at which the error in the calculated frame is too large. At this point
you add a new key frame. This is a serial process (in terms of frames) so does
not parallelise well.
There are some approaches to parallelise this but they do not scale well to
large numbers of processes/threads/processors (while achieving optimal
compression) and will quite often have to throw compued data away as it turns
out not to be usefull (first thread decideds that a new key frame needed to
be added some time before the second thread's key frame was started).
Parallel processing of each frame is feasible to a certain extent but there
often has to be a lot of shared state between the "threads" as most video
compression techniques have motion estimation in them. I.e. you can't simply
split the image into regular, independent blocks and assign one block to each
thread as motion prediction will cause "blocks" to move around the image. Shared
state tends not to scale well (at best O(log n) often far worse) due to
syhncronisation constraints.
matfud
Yes, if you can look back at an old project and still think its good then you haven't learned much since you did it. Hopefuly there will be little nuggets in there that still please you but over all you should have learned from your mistakes (and you will have made them).
matfud
Why yes, I am a pessimist.
Try Lyx, a GUI for LaTex.
It was captured digitaly. Or rather is was captured in as digital a manner as any pictures are. It was grabbed from a drum scanner. This had an analog front end from which the data was digitised. All digital cameras still have analog front ends. The readout from the CCD or CMOS sensor is always analog.
Admitidly it ain't a camera but it still set precident for the internet (porn).
One of the first (and still the most commonly used image in image processing) is actaully porn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna
matfud
In the past 10 or so years there has been a lot of research into sensors that have a log response to light levels. This allows a very high dynamic range scene to be compressed into 8 to 12 bit output which is about the noise limit for the electronics in cameras. However the sensors are based on CMOS tech rather then CCD (photoresistors rather then electron buckets) and as such tend to have large fixed pattern and thermal noise issues.
matfud
But yes, I don't really think it would work. It only works marginally well in ideal situations without low pass filters (that log(n) thing again). With low pass I doubt it would work at all. Although there is more information there. It depends on how much additional information that is and how it interacts with the log(n) limit. There is some information but not much.
matfud
Yup, you're probably correct.
:)
However even with low pass filters the values at the offset sampling points will be different and could still be used to enhance the frequency range. Whether you could with mobile phones or not is engineering not theory
Another point is that most modern sampling systems do not have particularly effective low pass filtering prior to sampling. Analog filters take a fair bit of space even if they are surface mount or integrated into chips. Most devices rely on the filters in front end of the ADC (sometimes with a simple single pole low pass outside it). They then sample at a much higher frequency then they need and digitaly apply an 'ideal' (yeh I know they don't actually exist) low pass filter to get a very sharp cutoff (with low ringing) before subsampling to the required frequency. See oversampling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversampling.
matfud
Yes that true, but only for one source. If you have multiple 8khz signals whose sample points are not synchronized then you can combine them to improve the overall frequency range obtainable. However this would increase the final achivable frequency in proportion to the log of the number of sampling devices (under ideal situations) so you would need a fair few sources (If I remeber correctly). Mobile phones would probably be quite far from this ideal as they
a) would be physically seperated so you'd have to perform some correlation first to remove the arbitrary time delays from the audio source to the phones and this would remove some of the resolution
b) would not be sampling at the optimum times wrt each other (perfectly interleaved sampling).
A similar techique is used for images. An 8 bit camera can record, at best, 256 levels of grey. If you take multiple images of the same scene and average them together you can increase the effective number of grey levels you can reconstruct while also removing the effects of thermal noise. Doing similar with audio would not use averaging but would instead interleave the samples from the out of synch microphone ADC's.
matfud
I haven't yet come across a digibox that won't produce composite signals. They cost as little as £18 ($40). SD only in this country though.
The only advantage is that you get many more channels. I get 4 analog channels compared to about 45 digital tv channels. You also get about 30 digital radio channels via your tv.
The disadvantages are that you get drop outs and crashes in low signal areas (mostly for me when motorbikes go past (shitty ignition systems)). Low signal is generally about 50 to 60% signal quality on what ever monitor your box provides.
I live about 500 yards from the transmitter for most of these channels but I live at the bottom of the hill it is situated on and am therefore not in direct line of sight.
matfud