Those of us using the script "smxi" http://techpatterns.com/forums/about736.html do this already. It probably only works with the sidux distro, though (maybe on other Debian-based distros?).
I don't know if the one in the link has been recovered (it was the only one that I remember that wasn't classified), but it has been sitting in the mud off the coast of Georgia for about 50 years. Well, that explains one of the red states.
Signal-to-noise should go down as roughly 1/N^(1/2), where N here is your number of exposures (as long as your signal isn't changing between frames). More exposures means a better signal-to-shit ratio.
Now, if you're basing a real signal as being above some threshold, and noise as being below, then you need only one exposure, if the signal is present in that exposure. Otherwise, just keep snapping frames. No different than exposing film or a long-exposure sensor for a longer time.
I've used LyX (used it for my doctoral thesis) almost exclusively as a LaTeX editor. I highly recommend it for just about anyone (it's available for OS X, Windows, and, of course, linux). It comes with its own tutorial. http://www.lyx.org/
Interesting experiment. However, I suggest you do not title your posts "Can anyone repro?" on Slashdot. The answers you get may be, well,.... exciting and very, very scary.
The story is that they've replicated on a nano-scale turning a constant force input into an oscillating net force at the point of interest, something which has apparently not been done before. Good point. However, I'd bet that it's NOT a constant force input, as they're using a lock-in amp to monitor things. That implies an oscillating voltage on a measureable scale. After all, as the mushroom head traverses the space, the Coulombic repulsion on the electrons waiting at the pick-up site decreases; once the electronic cargo is dropped off and starts wandering down the egress wire, this force disappears (assuming a grounded oscillator).
I don't know if this has been done on a nano-scale before: you're probably right that this aspect is the real news.
I've always loved that description, except I've never thought that one foot was nearly enough. Wouldn't the waitress just end up with one bare leg, and the other in the wrong leg-hole? And even more importantly, whose left?!?
I understand that the DC force from the electrodes is essentially constant. However, the total force on the "mushroom" is NOT constant (as you state in your post). I read the summary as giving a whole lot of emphasis on this "constant force" thing, which is probably my mistake.
It's really no different a concept than seeing a bouncing ball as subject to a constant (gravitational) force, except when it's not, as when the concrete smacks it back upward.
Perhaps this is what people more conversant with computers than I mean when they post stuff like "Why the heck is this news for nerds? Everyone knows this!" To me, this was a non-starter. Slow news day?
(Emphasis mine)
The force disappears and the mushroom's stiffness sends it swinging back to the source again like metronome, and the process starts again.
Voila! A nanomechanical oscillator that converts a a constant force into an oscillation. Huh. A force which is NOT constant is described as a constant force. Nice. This is just the charged-ping-pong-ball-near-a-Van-de-Graaf generator experiment, only writ on a small scale.
"The beauty of the device is that it can produce the whole spectrum of colors, even ultraviolet and infrared light, using only incident light. As a result, the expensive color filters used in every other color display on the market today, are no longer needed." I'm not convinced. All I got was "Nothing to see here. Please move along."
Slashdot Mirror
It's a fine quote, but it may not be of or from Franklin. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
Those of us using the script "smxi" http://techpatterns.com/forums/about736.html do this already. It probably only works with the sidux distro, though (maybe on other Debian-based distros?).
500,000! No, wait...
Pinochle?!? Those silly DOD guys.
In 50 years, that may have transitioned to an anachronism. I hope not.
Or "spiderpig". Comes with its own theme song.
That's a Brobdignagian word, sir.
Does anyone else think that starting a petition threatening to leave the site on which the petition is hosted...? Oh, nevermind.
Signal-to-noise should go down as roughly 1/N^(1/2), where N here is your number of exposures (as long as your signal isn't changing between frames). More exposures means a better signal-to-shit ratio.
Now, if you're basing a real signal as being above some threshold, and noise as being below, then you need only one exposure, if the signal is present in that exposure. Otherwise, just keep snapping frames. No different than exposing film or a long-exposure sensor for a longer time.
Add up 1000 of those frames, and you have a 50 second exposure.
The answer is d! All of the others reference numbers, not letters. ;)
Thank goodness 50% of your customers will be out of commision too! There's always a silver lining :)
I've used LyX (used it for my doctoral thesis) almost exclusively as a LaTeX editor. I highly recommend it for just about anyone (it's available for OS X, Windows, and, of course, linux). It comes with its own tutorial.
http://www.lyx.org/
Interesting experiment. However, I suggest you do not title your posts "Can anyone repro?" on Slashdot. The answers you get may be, well, .... exciting and very, very scary.
I don't know if this has been done on a nano-scale before: you're probably right that this aspect is the real news.
I'm not sure if that's what I meant. Do you have a dancing flash animation to maybe explain it to me?
I've always loved that description, except I've never thought that one foot was nearly enough. Wouldn't the waitress just end up with one bare leg, and the other in the wrong leg-hole? And even more importantly, whose left?!?
I understand that the DC force from the electrodes is essentially constant. However, the total force on the "mushroom" is NOT constant (as you state in your post). I read the summary as giving a whole lot of emphasis on this "constant force" thing, which is probably my mistake.
It's really no different a concept than seeing a bouncing ball as subject to a constant (gravitational) force, except when it's not, as when the concrete smacks it back upward.
Perhaps this is what people more conversant with computers than I mean when they post stuff like "Why the heck is this news for nerds? Everyone knows this!" To me, this was a non-starter. Slow news day?
nano-pillar = mushroom;
I'm still working on the "Snaaaake! Snaaaake!" bits.
Voila! A nanomechanical oscillator that converts a a constant force into an oscillation. Huh. A force which is NOT constant is described as a constant force. Nice. This is just the charged-ping-pong-ball-near-a-Van-de-Graaf generator experiment, only writ on a small scale.