This may be as it is; but if Harmony was contaminated, so would be Android. Just using Free Software does not automatically guarantee that is was unencumbered. And maybe only by mistake (encumbered); that would not help at all. And 'feeding back' into a community project is totally unrelated to the potential issue of copyright violation.
The last thing I'd like to do, was defending Oracle. But arguments need to be correct, complete, and relevant.
Héhéhé! As of now it is still there; in the anonymous stomach of Microsoft. Now I'm waiting for the fanboi to give Stevie B. a call. And then he'll start swirling chairs, yelling "I'll fxxxing kill that fxxxing pussy that didn't remove that fxxxing doc!!"
You might have difficulties reading, so I help you:
"Flash has an auto-updater. If they ship with it, it'll just auto-update" -> "How is this any different the Ubuntu Linux? It doesn't come with flash either. You have to download it directly." So the topic - and the whole lot - is on the installation and update of Flash on Apple. Ubuntu doesn't come with Flash out of the box. But neither does it have the same update problem that OSX has (it updates through aptitude); nor do the users have to "download it directly".
i personally don't much like any of their products anyway. and you know what, i don't even particularly mind the grossly dis-proportionate number of apple-related articles published on/., 'cause i can just scroll past them.
Yep. Your post betrays your words, though. Implicitly at least.
What's wrong with the mods, today?? How is this 'insightful', when I have been installing - and millions, if not billions along with me -, and upgrading, Flash automagically with my, with our, apt-get update && apt-get upgrade?
At first sight, your low ID seems to betray what you wrote. Where is the point of a degree, when it ends with a vocational training cert? MCSE, CCNA? I'd for one call this a rip-off. Paying through the nose for a degree, and ending up configuring Cisco or Juniper (or, worse, Server 2008)? Please, go to the article and read the link on Medieval University, or any other. A university is not a trades school. And if it is, the name is wrong, and the fees exorbitant. And what is 'accreditation'? Recently I interviewed some people freshly graduated from an 'accredited' place, and they seriously knew zilch. Zilch. They had passed their courses and nothing else. Learned close to nothing. I don't blame them, though. It is the 'accredited' thing, that the universities are riding high on, and dish out exactly what the accreditation process and auditors prescribe. Sad.
The beancounters have been around for much too long... . What is the average university/college (outside maybe the Ivy-League)? - A sort of accredited degree-mill. Controlled and regulated by the government of the day, administered a certain number of credit hours, administered a certain number of exams at the end of 'modules' (with a pressure of sometimes the university and/or sometimes the government, to pass a not too low percentage with good grades), churning out a sufficient number of 'graduates' sufficiently equipped to function in the industrial complex. Their profs have been appointed for a sufficient number of publications of ever more and ever more minuscule details in an exponentially increasing number of journals. 'Producing' is the term. "We are producing professionals", doesn't that smell of an assembly line with off-the-shelf 'products' exiting the milling process? Agreed, we need tradespeople and vocational training. Though: Do these really have to stem from a 'university'? (Read the link to the Medieval University in the article, if in doubt.)
Conceded. And who gets local access on your local browsing machine? That would have to be a malicious site. And then, there is nothing to be seen here; because those exist by the thousands, with or without this exploit. No, I don't want to play down this big, bad, hole.
Nope. If you are no fool. Because any good web server is set up to run as a local user, yes, but one without any command interpreter. For example/bin/false. Or/sbin/nologin. "Please, go away!" is what you might get.
And don't get me started on chrooted/jailed/zoned Apache.
Absolutely spot on! - IMHNSHO that's about the most insightful contribution to this topic! Actually, in the good ol' days it used to be like that. But the system has softened up, too much.
Your (re-invented, pun!) proposal would actually solve the problem within a few years: Patent applications are either granted or rejected as filed. So, when they don't fulfill the requirements of the local patent law respective patent convention, they must be are rejected outright. If there is an anticipatory document, rejected. No working embodiment described, rejected. If the application is done properly, no prior art available, description complete, then the patent is granted. We would see an almost immediate jump in the quality of the application, as well as an almost immediate drop in filing numbers. And the industry could not even complain, except that the onus will be on the applicant/application instead of the patent office, to get the application in order. I really, really don't see why this isn't been done. It would help very effectively, without extra cost to the public, without any further change of the law (convention). It would not break the patent system. By all means, we could - at least temporarily - leave software patents as allowable. Their numbers would simply take a quick, and decisive, downturn.
For those not quite in the know: Anything published before the filing/priority date is considered an anticipatory document. And all patent applications (not patents!) must be published, including the rejected ones. Plus, one's own documents can be cited against one's patent application. As a consequence, all rejected patent application would enter the public domain, without anyone, not even the original inventor, being able to re-file the application. This is, again IMHNSHO, the best self-regulatory method possible. The very moment you file an application, you better make sure, that it discloses the invention sufficiently, the claims are drafted adequately, and no anticipatory document is available. If you fail these, your invention becomes public knowledge after (currently) 18 month (time frame for publication requirement of all applications). -> So you better think twice before filing too broad claims. Even if your invention is genuine, but you 'over'-claim the breadth, you lose it all. If this is not an almost perfect self-regulation, there isn't any.
This is not a 'I invented something clever', but a 'I had a problem, I solved it in the obvious way, and I patented it'.
Spot on. Read Dolphinzilla's rebuttal further up. They hit a problem, spent a lot of money and man-months and whatnot to solve it. That maybe true, even. Though it doesn't at all warrant that a patent be granted. As I wrote, the application was seriously flawed, more of a patent troll, actually. In the end, by stacking uncountable items into claim 1, it was finally granted.
Claim 1. A system for displaying geographic information comprising: an input device for selecting a geographic area of interest; a display device for displaying geographic information corresponding to at least a portion of the selected geographic area, wherein the geographic information may be displayed at different resolutions and comprises photographic images, radar images, radio transmission information, cell phone transmission information, time sequenced images, ground moving target information, air moving target information, maritime moving target information, red or blue force identification or potential hazard areas; and a geographic information data storage device communicating with the input device and the display device, wherein the geographic information data storage device stores information relating to the selected geographic area at different times, and the display device may sequentially display the geographic information relating to the same position in the selected geographic area from the different times.
What you had asked for was:
Claim 1. A system for displaying geographic information comprising: an input device for selecting a geographic area of interest; and a display device for displaying geographic information corresponding to at least a portion of the selected geographic area, wherein the geographic information may be displayed at different resolutions.
This is a great example of what is wrong with the system. In the old Belgian system, it would have been simply rejected, btw. And that's most adequate, as far as me, an ex-patent examiner is concerned. Look, we get this nonsense of - sorry - not incredibly well written stuff, where the applications claim The World. It has a filing date of March 2005. And it isn't all too difficult to throw a number of prior art at the applicant. But we can't simply kick the applicants' buttocks any longer, unfortunately. If we want to make our job easy, actually the easiest, we still need to do the search, take all relevant documents together, and propose something to the applicant that hasn't been anticipated. No, I haven't taken the time to look up what that examiner did. I am just saying, that's the easiest way for an examiner to handle something like that. But it is all wrong, it is actually helping the applicant with a lousy application; helping the applicant - sort of - to rewrite the claims in a manner that the examiner could grant. I really never understood why we have to do that. If we could only decide on the submitted application, the patent system would be in a much better state, because the applicant would have to do a proper research, and then draft the application accordingly, and accordingly narrow. It is like me asking the local council for a building permit in a reserved area. Instead of turning it down, town hall would have to try to find another, unencumbered, place for me. Crazy, ain't it? Why would a patent examiner have to haggle with the applicant what could be granted instead??
Listen, and don't take this personal, please, your application deserved one thing, and only one thing: outright rejection. What was granted, I think, looks okay to me. But that's what your patent attorney was supposed to do, in the first place, if I had any say.
Now we are going somewhere. Thank you very much, I will study these in detail. It seems like accommodation can be achieved with microlens arrays, and that was my most contentious point in the whole lot of our recent discussion.
Back to the original discussion, which was less academic and based on the experience of people at what was shown at IFA 2010: Is that 3D? Or, as the title of the original post said: Is it a joke? The answers seem to remain the same: No - Yes.
Almost, yes. I am running some of those, for other purposes. And while I adore those, kind-of, they are anything but cool (pun!), don't need a fan, but a kludgey heat-sink, and perform exactly insufficient for a normal desktop.
I think x86 compatibility is a much bigger issue. People "choose" x86 because it "needs" to run Windows. Absolutely correct diagnostics. Of a perpetuated societal mental screw-up.
Yes. When I wrote the OP, I was looking for a strike-through HTML tag. I wanted to write "A [strikethough]MAC[/strikethrough] ARM mini". It didn't work. Also, the specs don't really fit: Starting at $699 doesn't fit at all, actually.
Though, thumbs up, you've got the idea perfectly well. And there are plenty of people, left and right, who don't like the 'towers' any longer. And when you open those, they are usually quite empty (except for the game freaks, where they are always too small). Though, almost everyone still buys one (tower), when they want a PC. Or a laptop, though that's sub-optimal for other reasons, and still not always energy efficient. Maybe that's really only me, but I'd swap my tower with a low-power ARM mini as specified earlier anytime.
I'm thinking of the marketplace these would be targetted at. Me too. All those machines that I see being run for our receptionists, point of sales, kiosks. No, I don't think everyone will bring their HDMI-enabled mobile from home and plug it in a docking station. As security-conscious person I even wouldn't want. Though, just think about the saving in energy, when 1 billion PCs can be replaced by boxen consuming a fraction of the current power-sucklers! Let the other 1 billion still sit on WIntel, if need be. Though, how many machines do we have by now that do a bit of web-surfing, the odd text processing, an e-mail here or there, pr0n; maybe, flash (Youtube). Consuming something close to 100 Watt. That makes me sick.
something that lets them do 'netbook' style stuff - web, email, text, social networks, youtube. Well, that's covered And how is it covered? By 10W-suckers of Atom that have a fan? Even more so here, a CPU at less than 1W and no heat-sink will make run netbooks even longer off battery. Once the users get to know, and understand, that nobody needs Windows for the Interwebs!
Of course, that's what I can foresee. But 1280x1024 is already far out of the scope. Nevermind the lack of hardware acceleration at those specifications. A bit of compiz is quite okay for me; doesn't have to be rotating cubes. Give it an extra slot 5.25", and HDMI. Otherwise Marvell won't sell all too many. And ping me when that machine comes to the market, please.
'The exciting place for software developer graduates to go and hunt for work is no longer the desktop.'
Why, actually, why?? I am really really looking forward to a desktop with low power footprint. There is no need here to run MS-crapware; no Crysis or other high-resource gaming. Gimme a nice desktop, low-low power, that boots to Debian on ARM, and I throw mine out of the window. And I already have a 80+ PSU, single row of RAM, dual-core EE AMD. It still has a 45W TDP; plus AMD does not sell the Energy Efficient (EE) any longer except to OEMs; at least in this country. Throw out the 24-pin plus 12 V power supply, let's do everything on 12 V, give it 6 USBs, Sata, HDMI/DVI, Ethernet and WiFi. A mini ARM. And, yes, I want to be able to add a hard disk of my own, maybe a DVD- or BlueRay-Drive, so add some space.
At some moment in time I think I was wrong when I wrote that you knew what you are talking about. As of now, we can just read nice-sounding, though rather empty phrases. Maybe you can provide some of the literature that you cite? I was hoping you could refute my arguments, instead you keep insisting on well-understood and common sense items that I don't question; and then you spice them up with blank statements without references, resources, explanation.
Nobody denies the difference of lenticular lenses and microlens arrays. Nobody refutes that a microlens array can as well extend the ability of a lenticular lens into the 'up-down' category, thereby producing an 'up'/'down' information on top of the 'left'/'right' that the lenticular lens provides. Nobody denies that the image taken from a microlens array contains more information; much more effectively, since it contains the full 2D-locational information, whereas the lenticular one provides only left-right offset.
Now go back and read your first post: Disparity is the most important factor in 3D perception in the human visual system, other than motion parallax. Two cameras capture disparity, and motion parallax can be achieved with head-tracking--technology to do this with computer vision instead of having to use a head-mounted display has existed for the past 20 years at least. Vergence and accommodation (focus) are secondary and always overridden by the other factors; this is a neurophysiological fact. Moreover, both can be handled by the use of an ultra-high resolution display and a microlens array--or simply using a head-mounted display with active optics and eye tracking. And the information from two cameras is sufficient from both, because depth can be extracted from disparity and all other effects can be computed for a fitting display. How many cameras are needed now? With your microlens array, a single camera is sufficient. How do you extract depth information about disparity of an occluded object? Most of all, a microlens array is still an optical lens, and the focus of the human eye will invariably be on the virtual image plane. There is no way to have the eye focusing at different distances, depending on the content that the lenses display. So the observer will always focus the eyes at a constant distance. What you do, is arguing on the image-pickup side, not on the projection side: is enough because the total optical information of a volume is the light rays contained therein, which can each be parameterized by the two pairs of intersection coordinates of the ray and two parallel planes. Yes, that's the camera.
Also look at the subject of this thread: Our GrandPa titled it "Except it isn't 3D", w.r.t. the stereoscopic efforts shown at the IFA this year. At least now you seem to agree that, actually, it isn't. Because your - in these days still theoretical - arrangement is not what is shown at the IFA.
I for one like academic discussions, I do them daily. Maybe you can make up your mind, and then provide supporting evidence? I'm still mostly interested in how a projection into a 2-dimensional plane (head-mounted or screen, including projection screen made with microlenses) can trick the eye into accommodation of various physical distances.
Thanks for your info. I'd be too interested to read that document (and a bunch of others that the same authors have published), but they are subscribers only. I have tried "texture seam filling algorithm" in Google, but nothing shows up. Your other two ways were proposed in the literature more than 25 years ago and do not effectively invalid my argument: Any object invisible to any of the n cameras cannot be reconstructed, because there is exactly zero information about its existence. Any object visible on exactly one camera (out of 2... n) can only be recognized as 'behind' another object, due to occlusion.
A microlens is nothing but the lenticular lens array mentioned earlier. As far as I can make out from here, it cannot handle accommodation (prove me wrong, please, if you can. Though not by statements, but facts). Of course, it can reproduce motion parallax; by doing the opposite what the Fraunhofer screen (I think) is doing: assemble all incoming light arrays spatially selective on the sensor. Though that's not different (to me, as of now, again, prove me wrong) than the multi-perspective view of a plurality of cameras.
Actually, I was with the first team of the institute (now Fraunhofer) that showed microlens-based auto-stereoscopy (6 perspectives) at IFA 1985. Though I left that field (and the institute) in 1987, I don't mind learning new things. Though, I require sound resources and explanations, not blank statements. Your last one does not instill all too much of confidence, alas. Again, prove me wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
This may be as it is; but if Harmony was contaminated, so would be Android. Just using Free Software does not automatically guarantee that is was unencumbered. And maybe only by mistake (encumbered); that would not help at all.
And 'feeding back' into a community project is totally unrelated to the potential issue of copyright violation.
The last thing I'd like to do, was defending Oracle. But arguments need to be correct, complete, and relevant.
http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/c/0/1c0aa1b6-bb2b-4371-a2a0-80c8c8497b6d/LSE_WinServ03.doc
Héhéhé! As of now it is still there; in the anonymous stomach of Microsoft.
Now I'm waiting for the fanboi to give Stevie B. a call. And then he'll start swirling chairs, yelling "I'll fxxxing kill that fxxxing pussy that didn't remove that fxxxing doc!!"
This is funny, but I lack mod points, alas.
OR he could have been passing some hot chicks in scant outfits
Where do you live? It's late autumn in Austria. And fscking cold, if that's what you had in mind ... .
You might have difficulties reading, so I help you:
"Flash has an auto-updater. If they ship with it, it'll just auto-update" -> "How is this any different the Ubuntu Linux? It doesn't come with flash either. You have to download it directly."
So the topic - and the whole lot - is on the installation and update of Flash on Apple.
Ubuntu doesn't come with Flash out of the box. But neither does it have the same update problem that OSX has (it updates through aptitude); nor do the users have to "download it directly".
i personally don't much like any of their products anyway. and you know what, i don't even particularly mind the grossly dis-proportionate number of apple-related articles published on /., 'cause i can just scroll past them.
Yep. Your post betrays your words, though. Implicitly at least.
What's wrong with the mods, today??
How is this 'insightful', when I have been installing - and millions, if not billions along with me -, and upgrading, Flash automagically with my, with our, apt-get update && apt-get upgrade?
"certification exams from trusted vendors"
to me reads vocational/trade. Though YMMV.
At first sight, your low ID seems to betray what you wrote. Where is the point of a degree, when it ends with a vocational training cert? MCSE, CCNA? I'd for one call this a rip-off. Paying through the nose for a degree, and ending up configuring Cisco or Juniper (or, worse, Server 2008)?
Please, go to the article and read the link on Medieval University, or any other. A university is not a trades school. And if it is, the name is wrong, and the fees exorbitant.
And what is 'accreditation'? Recently I interviewed some people freshly graduated from an 'accredited' place, and they seriously knew zilch. Zilch. They had passed their courses and nothing else. Learned close to nothing. I don't blame them, though. It is the 'accredited' thing, that the universities are riding high on, and dish out exactly what the accreditation process and auditors prescribe. Sad.
The beancounters have been around for much too long ... .
What is the average university/college (outside maybe the Ivy-League)? - A sort of accredited degree-mill. Controlled and regulated by the government of the day, administered a certain number of credit hours, administered a certain number of exams at the end of 'modules' (with a pressure of sometimes the university and/or sometimes the government, to pass a not too low percentage with good grades), churning out a sufficient number of 'graduates' sufficiently equipped to function in the industrial complex.
Their profs have been appointed for a sufficient number of publications of ever more and ever more minuscule details in an exponentially increasing number of journals. 'Producing' is the term. "We are producing professionals", doesn't that smell of an assembly line with off-the-shelf 'products' exiting the milling process? Agreed, we need tradespeople and vocational training. Though: Do these really have to stem from a 'university'? (Read the link to the Medieval University in the article, if in doubt.)
Conceded.
And who gets local access on your local browsing machine? That would have to be a malicious site. And then, there is nothing to be seen here; because those exist by the thousands, with or without this exploit. No, I don't want to play down this big, bad, hole.
Nope. If you are no fool. Because any good web server is set up to run as a local user, yes, but one without any command interpreter. For example /bin/false. Or /sbin/nologin.
"Please, go away!" is what you might get.
And don't get me started on chrooted/jailed/zoned Apache.
Absolutely spot on! - IMHNSHO that's about the most insightful contribution to this topic!
Actually, in the good ol' days it used to be like that. But the system has softened up, too much.
Your (re-invented, pun!) proposal would actually solve the problem within a few years: Patent applications are either granted or rejected as filed.
So, when they don't fulfill the requirements of the local patent law respective patent convention, they must be are rejected outright. If there is an anticipatory document, rejected. No working embodiment described, rejected. If the application is done properly, no prior art available, description complete, then the patent is granted.
We would see an almost immediate jump in the quality of the application, as well as an almost immediate drop in filing numbers. And the industry could not even complain, except that the onus will be on the applicant/application instead of the patent office, to get the application in order.
I really, really don't see why this isn't been done. It would help very effectively, without extra cost to the public, without any further change of the law (convention). It would not break the patent system. By all means, we could - at least temporarily - leave software patents as allowable. Their numbers would simply take a quick, and decisive, downturn.
For those not quite in the know: Anything published before the filing/priority date is considered an anticipatory document. And all patent applications (not patents!) must be published, including the rejected ones. Plus, one's own documents can be cited against one's patent application. As a consequence, all rejected patent application would enter the public domain, without anyone, not even the original inventor, being able to re-file the application. This is, again IMHNSHO, the best self-regulatory method possible. The very moment you file an application, you better make sure, that it discloses the invention sufficiently, the claims are drafted adequately, and no anticipatory document is available. If you fail these, your invention becomes public knowledge after (currently) 18 month (time frame for publication requirement of all applications).
-> So you better think twice before filing too broad claims. Even if your invention is genuine, but you 'over'-claim the breadth, you lose it all.
If this is not an almost perfect self-regulation, there isn't any.
This is not a 'I invented something clever', but a 'I had a problem, I solved it in the obvious way, and I patented it'.
Spot on. Read Dolphinzilla's rebuttal further up. They hit a problem, spent a lot of money and man-months and whatnot to solve it. That maybe true, even. Though it doesn't at all warrant that a patent be granted.
As I wrote, the application was seriously flawed, more of a patent troll, actually. In the end, by stacking uncountable items into claim 1, it was finally granted.
Flawed is the system we have, and entirely so.
What was granted to you was:
Claim 1. A system for displaying geographic information comprising: an input device for selecting a geographic area of interest; a display device for displaying geographic information corresponding to at least a portion of the selected geographic area, wherein the geographic information may be displayed at different resolutions and comprises photographic images, radar images, radio transmission information, cell phone transmission information, time sequenced images, ground moving target information, air moving target information, maritime moving target information, red or blue force identification or potential hazard areas; and a geographic information data storage device communicating with the input device and the display device, wherein the geographic information data storage device stores information relating to the selected geographic area at different times, and the display device may sequentially display the geographic information relating to the same position in the selected geographic area from the different times.
What you had asked for was:
Claim 1. A system for displaying geographic information comprising: an input device for selecting a geographic area of interest; and a display device for displaying geographic information corresponding to at least a portion of the selected geographic area, wherein the geographic information may be displayed at different resolutions.
This is a great example of what is wrong with the system. In the old Belgian system, it would have been simply rejected, btw. And that's most adequate, as far as me, an ex-patent examiner is concerned.
Look, we get this nonsense of - sorry - not incredibly well written stuff, where the applications claim The World. It has a filing date of March 2005. And it isn't all too difficult to throw a number of prior art at the applicant. But we can't simply kick the applicants' buttocks any longer, unfortunately. If we want to make our job easy, actually the easiest, we still need to do the search, take all relevant documents together, and propose something to the applicant that hasn't been anticipated. No, I haven't taken the time to look up what that examiner did. I am just saying, that's the easiest way for an examiner to handle something like that. But it is all wrong, it is actually helping the applicant with a lousy application; helping the applicant - sort of - to rewrite the claims in a manner that the examiner could grant. I really never understood why we have to do that. If we could only decide on the submitted application, the patent system would be in a much better state, because the applicant would have to do a proper research, and then draft the application accordingly, and accordingly narrow. It is like me asking the local council for a building permit in a reserved area. Instead of turning it down, town hall would have to try to find another, unencumbered, place for me. Crazy, ain't it? Why would a patent examiner have to haggle with the applicant what could be granted instead??
Listen, and don't take this personal, please, your application deserved one thing, and only one thing: outright rejection. What was granted, I think, looks okay to me. But that's what your patent attorney was supposed to do, in the first place, if I had any say.
Now we are going somewhere. Thank you very much, I will study these in detail.
It seems like accommodation can be achieved with microlens arrays, and that was my most contentious point in the whole lot of our recent discussion.
Back to the original discussion, which was less academic and based on the experience of people at what was shown at IFA 2010: Is that 3D? Or, as the title of the original post said: Is it a joke? The answers seem to remain the same: No - Yes.
Thanks again for your explanations!
I am trolling
Almost, yes. I am running some of those, for other purposes. And while I adore those, kind-of, they are anything but cool (pun!), don't need a fan, but a kludgey heat-sink, and perform exactly insufficient for a normal desktop.
I think x86 compatibility is a much bigger issue. People "choose" x86 because it "needs" to run Windows.
Absolutely correct diagnostics. Of a perpetuated societal mental screw-up.
Yes. When I wrote the OP, I was looking for a strike-through HTML tag. I wanted to write "A [strikethough]MAC[/strikethrough] ARM mini". It didn't work.
Also, the specs don't really fit: Starting at $699 doesn't fit at all, actually.
Though, thumbs up, you've got the idea perfectly well.
And there are plenty of people, left and right, who don't like the 'towers' any longer. And when you open those, they are usually quite empty (except for the game freaks, where they are always too small). Though, almost everyone still buys one (tower), when they want a PC. Or a laptop, though that's sub-optimal for other reasons, and still not always energy efficient. Maybe that's really only me, but I'd swap my tower with a low-power ARM mini as specified earlier anytime.
What is "this country"?
Malaysia, since you ask.
I'm thinking of the marketplace these would be targetted at.
Me too. All those machines that I see being run for our receptionists, point of sales, kiosks.
No, I don't think everyone will bring their HDMI-enabled mobile from home and plug it in a docking station. As security-conscious person I even wouldn't want.
Though, just think about the saving in energy, when 1 billion PCs can be replaced by boxen consuming a fraction of the current power-sucklers! Let the other 1 billion still sit on WIntel, if need be. Though, how many machines do we have by now that do a bit of web-surfing, the odd text processing, an e-mail here or there, pr0n; maybe, flash (Youtube). Consuming something close to 100 Watt. That makes me sick.
something that lets them do 'netbook' style stuff - web, email, text, social networks, youtube. Well, that's covered
And how is it covered? By 10W-suckers of Atom that have a fan? Even more so here, a CPU at less than 1W and no heat-sink will make run netbooks even longer off battery. Once the users get to know, and understand, that nobody needs Windows for the Interwebs!
Of course, that's what I can foresee. But 1280x1024 is already far out of the scope. Nevermind the lack of hardware acceleration at those specifications. A bit of compiz is quite okay for me; doesn't have to be rotating cubes.
Give it an extra slot 5.25", and HDMI. Otherwise Marvell won't sell all too many.
And ping me when that machine comes to the market, please.
'The exciting place for software developer graduates to go and hunt for work is no longer the desktop.'
Why, actually, why??
I am really really looking forward to a desktop with low power footprint. There is no need here to run MS-crapware; no Crysis or other high-resource gaming.
Gimme a nice desktop, low-low power, that boots to Debian on ARM, and I throw mine out of the window. And I already have a 80+ PSU, single row of RAM, dual-core EE AMD. It still has a 45W TDP; plus AMD does not sell the Energy Efficient (EE) any longer except to OEMs; at least in this country.
Throw out the 24-pin plus 12 V power supply, let's do everything on 12 V, give it 6 USBs, Sata, HDMI/DVI, Ethernet and WiFi. A mini ARM.
And, yes, I want to be able to add a hard disk of my own, maybe a DVD- or BlueRay-Drive, so add some space.
At some moment in time I think I was wrong when I wrote that you knew what you are talking about. As of now, we can just read nice-sounding, though rather empty phrases.
Maybe you can provide some of the literature that you cite?
I was hoping you could refute my arguments, instead you keep insisting on well-understood and common sense items that I don't question; and then you spice them up with blank statements without references, resources, explanation.
Nobody denies the difference of lenticular lenses and microlens arrays. Nobody refutes that a microlens array can as well extend the ability of a lenticular lens into the 'up-down' category, thereby producing an 'up'/'down' information on top of the 'left'/'right' that the lenticular lens provides. Nobody denies that the image taken from a microlens array contains more information; much more effectively, since it contains the full 2D-locational information, whereas the lenticular one provides only left-right offset.
Now go back and read your first post:
Disparity is the most important factor in 3D perception in the human visual system, other than motion parallax. Two cameras capture disparity, and motion parallax can be achieved with head-tracking--technology to do this with computer vision instead of having to use a head-mounted display has existed for the past 20 years at least. Vergence and accommodation (focus) are secondary and always overridden by the other factors; this is a neurophysiological fact. Moreover, both can be handled by the use of an ultra-high resolution display and a microlens array--or simply using a head-mounted display with active optics and eye tracking. And the information from two cameras is sufficient from both, because depth can be extracted from disparity and all other effects can be computed for a fitting display.
How many cameras are needed now? With your microlens array, a single camera is sufficient.
How do you extract depth information about disparity of an occluded object?
Most of all, a microlens array is still an optical lens, and the focus of the human eye will invariably be on the virtual image plane. There is no way to have the eye focusing at different distances, depending on the content that the lenses display. So the observer will always focus the eyes at a constant distance. What you do, is arguing on the image-pickup side, not on the projection side: is enough because the total optical information of a volume is the light rays contained therein, which can each be parameterized by the two pairs of intersection coordinates of the ray and two parallel planes. Yes, that's the camera.
Also look at the subject of this thread: Our GrandPa titled it "Except it isn't 3D", w.r.t. the stereoscopic efforts shown at the IFA this year. At least now you seem to agree that, actually, it isn't. Because your - in these days still theoretical - arrangement is not what is shown at the IFA.
I for one like academic discussions, I do them daily. Maybe you can make up your mind, and then provide supporting evidence? I'm still mostly interested in how a projection into a 2-dimensional plane (head-mounted or screen, including projection screen made with microlenses) can trick the eye into accommodation of various physical distances.
Thanks for your info. I'd be too interested to read that document (and a bunch of others that the same authors have published), but they are subscribers only. ... n) can only be recognized as 'behind' another object, due to occlusion.
I have tried "texture seam filling algorithm" in Google, but nothing shows up. Your other two ways were proposed in the literature more than 25 years ago and do not effectively invalid my argument: Any object invisible to any of the n cameras cannot be reconstructed, because there is exactly zero information about its existence. Any object visible on exactly one camera (out of 2
A microlens is nothing but the lenticular lens array mentioned earlier. As far as I can make out from here, it cannot handle accommodation (prove me wrong, please, if you can. Though not by statements, but facts). Of course, it can reproduce motion parallax; by doing the opposite what the Fraunhofer screen (I think) is doing: assemble all incoming light arrays spatially selective on the sensor. Though that's not different (to me, as of now, again, prove me wrong) than the multi-perspective view of a plurality of cameras.
Actually, I was with the first team of the institute (now Fraunhofer) that showed microlens-based auto-stereoscopy (6 perspectives) at IFA 1985. Though I left that field (and the institute) in 1987, I don't mind learning new things. Though, I require sound resources and explanations, not blank statements. Your last one does not instill all too much of confidence, alas. Again, prove me wrong.