Who wrote that article anyway? Some guy on the internet who looks at some pictures of the repair and thinks he knows what a bunch of engineers working on the problem didn't know?
Reading the article, it sounded more like sports commentary. He's looking at the evidence available to him and attempting to give his thoughts on what he thinks happened. It's not that he thinks he's smarter than the engineers, it's that he's interested in this incident, and he's using available public knowledge and his engineering interest to explain what he thinks about the event. Sorta like Bill Nye? It seems pretty obvious to me, given the way that he defines basic terms, that he's trying take a technical issue and explain it to a nontechnical audience.
I've got no basis for knowing if he's right or wrong, but if you think you know better, why not send him your ideas? He does seem to be reading mail.
So I assume you have a solution to this problem that is more sophisticated than abolishing ITAR and any foreign national to work on anything?
Are you saying ITAR serves no useful purpose? I'm guessing not. But are you at least saying that ITAR does more harm than good? Because if so, I'd love to hear your reasoning on that.
Seems to me that you're proposing something that provides short term gains (more labor) for long term losses (loss in strategic technological advantage).
Brief and witty is good. Brief and ambiguous is bad. Should probably have just used more words, rather than try to be witty. You can't just ask someone to explain all their premises. State the premise you have a problem with, and then *maybe* you can use "citation needed."
I personally don't even know what he wants clarification on. Does he want someone to explain...
- what good deeds will will come of this (after all, how do we know that mining these minerals does not cause more environmental harm)?
- how specific government activities increase these 'beneficial' activities?
- how inflating the price of component is supposed to increase the availability of 'green' technology?
If someone disagrees, then it's doubtable. As to whether it's factual:
That's true, but not very relevant. Whether a statement needs a citation does not depend on whether or not it is doubtable (or doubted), per se. Rather, it depends on whether the *factual accuracy* of the statement is doubtable. What I took from AC's post is that a statement judged on factual merit requires a citation if the veracity is doubtable, but a statement of opinion does not.
The factual premises on which the opinion is founded may need citations, but not the original statement of opinion.
It's an optimization tradeoff. If you want to optimize for disk space, you can do it the way I suggested. If disk space isn't an issue, then having two files isn't a problem.
For audio encoding, the overhead of transcoding a high quality file to a high-compression file might be relatively insignificant, but the usefulness is sort of similar to Scalable Video Coding.
Having both streams allows an itunes-like program that transfers audio files from your computer to your more limited mp3 player to very easily generate a high-compression file from a high quality one. The process is nearly free. You don't have to fully re-encode the audio, just strip out the lossless part.
Another use case is having a streaming media server that streams both high quality and low quality versions. The server only needs to store one audio file, but can serve multiple quality levels with minimal effort.
Why restrict them to discovering a nand implementation? I was going to ask how close they were to implementing "not".
I'd rather ask the less restrictive question of how close they are to implementing a functionally complete set of gates in their process technology.
So for example this could be any of {nand}, {nor},{and,or,not}.
After all, it could be that in the RNA domain, building things out of all NANDs just isn't as efficient (in whatever sense they mean) as in static CMOS.
After looking at the site, I found the link at the bottom of this page that says you can install GD from Univ of Winnipeg, and I was able to install GD Graph from their repository.
I feel like the grandparent's point is that truth is an ultimate defense for a charge of slander/libel. And I see that your point is that you have a right to state whatever opinion statements you want, and that spammers have won their suits even though they probably didn't deserve to. But no matter how shocking his statement about you is, if it is true, he has a right to say it. Yes he might go to court for it, if he can prove it, no one can fault him for doing making that statement.
If your post really did kill a baby in a third world country, he could say it, because it was true. Sure you could charge him with defamation, but if the statement were true, and he can prove it, then he did not commit defamation.
Based on the article's saying "individually to adjust to various parts of an image", and some other related media press releases, their idea is to adaptively control the exposure of the pixel sensors so that they don't saturate.
Other equally non-technical press articles say that they're going to try to put an ASIC "between the camera lens and the image sensor." Now, I'm assuming they're not actually gonna block the light path, but that what they mean is that they're going to use some circuitry to control the image sensor. So it's not really like the dodge and burn technique, because you have to change the data that gets recorded at the sensor, not simply change things in post-processing.
Adaptive control is hardly a new idea in image sensors. This guy is just getting press because he's telling everyone he's getting inspiration from a fly. A similar thing happened a while back when some anonymized network software publicized that their inspiration was from ants, but they were rehashing a fairly old idea in networking.
Automatic adaptive control of DR will probably be the next step in consumer digital cameras (including cell phone cameras). Similar ideas have already been prototyped and presented at siggraph. Shrinking image sensor pixels (i.e., cramming more pixels on a chip) increases your resolution, but without additional effort, will reduce the sensor's dynamic range. And cell phone cameras have pretty horrible dynamic range (among other problems). It's a good thing that consumers only know how to measure imager quality by megapixels.
Would you buy a Ferrari and put regular gas into it?
I sort of resent this analogy. The reason you wouldn't put regular gasoline into certain expensive (sports) cars is that it is bad for the car if you do this. These cars were designed to use high-octane gasoline and if you don't, bad things will eventually happen. Using a cheap memory card won't damage your camera (unless it's incredibly defective).
The submitter implies in his or her intro that buying an expensive camera and a cheap memory card is a bad idea. I'm assuming that the implication is that this will cause reliability or speed problems. This isn't necessarily true. Any digital SLR (aka an "expensive camera") has a memory buffer, so the shot-to-shot time is primarily dictated by the camera hardware, not the memory card. Doing a *very* long burst will cause a slowdown. In this case, a faster memory card would help. But frankly, I find such situations to be exceedingly rare and generally avoidable.
If your camera is expensive, but doesn't have a memory buffer, then it's probably not very speed performance-oriented. Your price is probably going into some other feature, such as small size or image resolution.
Buying a fast memory card is more like putting a performance exhaust on your car, since it increases the speed incrementally.
Consumer Reports gives these reports for those who don't have time to mess around with their computer. Dell, and Compaq/HP have service plans for their computers. They also have a known reliability record (unlike some of the smaller Taiwanese retailers). Sure, their service departments might not always be that great and they might be in India, but it's better than nothing.
"Best Buy" in consumer reports does not mean "Best Deal". It means lowest-risk-of-hassle deal, that gets the job done, at a reasonable price point.
Sure, I could go and build your own car and get a great deal and a lot of horsepower out of it, but I'm sure as hell not going to do that, because I don't have time to mess with that. I need to get from point A to point B reasonably fast, and in under a couple grand. And I want someone to be there if my car craps out.
Slashdot Mirror
Who wrote that article anyway? Some guy on the internet who looks at some pictures of the repair and thinks he knows what a bunch of engineers working on the problem didn't know?
Reading the article, it sounded more like sports commentary. He's looking at the evidence available to him and attempting to give his thoughts on what he thinks happened. It's not that he thinks he's smarter than the engineers, it's that he's interested in this incident, and he's using available public knowledge and his engineering interest to explain what he thinks about the event. Sorta like Bill Nye? It seems pretty obvious to me, given the way that he defines basic terms, that he's trying take a technical issue and explain it to a nontechnical audience.
I've got no basis for knowing if he's right or wrong, but if you think you know better, why not send him your ideas? He does seem to be reading mail.
I once filed a bug report to a developer with instructions on how to reproduce it.
He responded with a fix that involved no changes to the source code.
He said, "don't do that."
So I assume you have a solution to this problem that is more sophisticated than abolishing ITAR and any foreign national to work on anything?
Are you saying ITAR serves no useful purpose? I'm guessing not. But are you at least saying that ITAR does more harm than good? Because if so, I'd love to hear your reasoning on that.
Seems to me that you're proposing something that provides short term gains (more labor) for long term losses (loss in strategic technological advantage).
Brief and witty is good. Brief and ambiguous is bad. Should probably have just used more words, rather than try to be witty. You can't just ask someone to explain all their premises. State the premise you have a problem with, and then *maybe* you can use "citation needed."
I personally don't even know what he wants clarification on. Does he want someone to explain...
- what good deeds will will come of this (after all, how do we know that mining these minerals does not cause more environmental harm)?
- how specific government activities increase these 'beneficial' activities?
- how inflating the price of component is supposed to increase the availability of 'green' technology?
I dunno. Which one is it? Who knows.
If someone disagrees, then it's doubtable. As to whether it's factual:
That's true, but not very relevant. Whether a statement needs a citation does not depend on whether or not it is doubtable (or doubted), per se. Rather, it depends on whether the *factual accuracy* of the statement is doubtable. What I took from AC's post is that a statement judged on factual merit requires a citation if the veracity is doubtable, but a statement of opinion does not.
The factual premises on which the opinion is founded may need citations, but not the original statement of opinion.
It's an optimization tradeoff. If you want to optimize for disk space, you can do it the way I suggested. If disk space isn't an issue, then having two files isn't a problem.
For audio encoding, the overhead of transcoding a high quality file to a high-compression file might be relatively insignificant, but the usefulness is sort of similar to Scalable Video Coding.
Having both streams allows an itunes-like program that transfers audio files from your computer to your more limited mp3 player to very easily generate a high-compression file from a high quality one. The process is nearly free. You don't have to fully re-encode the audio, just strip out the lossless part.
Another use case is having a streaming media server that streams both high quality and low quality versions. The server only needs to store one audio file, but can serve multiple quality levels with minimal effort.
Why restrict them to discovering a nand implementation? I was going to ask how close they were to implementing "not".
I'd rather ask the less restrictive question of how close they are to implementing a functionally complete set of gates in their process technology.
So for example this could be any of {nand}, {nor},{and,or,not}.
After all, it could be that in the RNA domain, building things out of all NANDs just isn't as efficient (in whatever sense they mean) as in static CMOS.
For an engineering document. Could just be one PDF spec document for a small processor, or maybe an instruction set manual.
19 CAD designs? Do they mean 19 full chip designs or just 19 verilog source files?
I'd be curious to know how big this thing really is. I bet that I could have that amount of cruft lying around somewhere from one of my previous jobs.
From Euro to US, that's like, what, 14% American?
(totally ruining the joke but I was referring to the possibility of a coal plant explosion not a nuclear accident)
Given the choice of living 5 miles from a nuclear PWR, and 5 miles from a coal plant - I'll take the PWR!
Quick and painless rather than slow and chronic, I say!
Probably about the same number of times the projects have been delayed in bureaucracy or gone over budget?
I used to use GD::Graph on my Windows-based system, but then the PPMs never got updated for the latest versions of ActivePerl.
For the longest time I have been without it since I updated ActivePerl, and there was no PPM available for GD::Graph on the ActiveState repository
http://ppm.activestate.com/BuildStatus/5.8-G.html
After looking at the site, I found the link at the bottom of this page that says you can install GD from Univ of Winnipeg, and I was able to install GD Graph from their repository.
I feel like the grandparent's point is that truth is an ultimate defense for a charge of slander/libel. And I see that your point is that you have a right to state whatever opinion statements you want, and that spammers have won their suits even though they probably didn't deserve to. But no matter how shocking his statement about you is, if it is true, he has a right to say it. Yes he might go to court for it, if he can prove it, no one can fault him for doing making that statement.
If your post really did kill a baby in a third world country, he could say it, because it was true. Sure you could charge him with defamation, but if the statement were true, and he can prove it, then he did not commit defamation.
The Chinese will survive us all without any doubt.
I like Chinese, yes I like Chinese.
Based on the article's saying "individually to adjust to various parts of an image", and some other related media press releases, their idea is to adaptively control the exposure of the pixel sensors so that they don't saturate.
Other equally non-technical press articles say that they're going to try to put an ASIC "between the camera lens and the image sensor." Now, I'm assuming they're not actually gonna block the light path, but that what they mean is that they're going to use some circuitry to control the image sensor. So it's not really like the dodge and burn technique, because you have to change the data that gets recorded at the sensor, not simply change things in post-processing.
Adaptive control is hardly a new idea in image sensors. This guy is just getting press because he's telling everyone he's getting inspiration from a fly. A similar thing happened a while back when some anonymized network software publicized that their inspiration was from ants, but they were rehashing a fairly old idea in networking.
Automatic adaptive control of DR will probably be the next step in consumer digital cameras (including cell phone cameras). Similar ideas have already been prototyped and presented at siggraph. Shrinking image sensor pixels (i.e., cramming more pixels on a chip) increases your resolution, but without additional effort, will reduce the sensor's dynamic range. And cell phone cameras have pretty horrible dynamic range (among other problems). It's a good thing that consumers only know how to measure imager quality by megapixels.
crap how did this get posted into the slashback article? was supposed to be in the memory card article.
I sort of resent this analogy. The reason you wouldn't put regular gasoline into certain expensive (sports) cars is that it is bad for the car if you do this. These cars were designed to use high-octane gasoline and if you don't, bad things will eventually happen. Using a cheap memory card won't damage your camera (unless it's incredibly defective).
The submitter implies in his or her intro that buying an expensive camera and a cheap memory card is a bad idea. I'm assuming that the implication is that this will cause reliability or speed problems. This isn't necessarily true. Any digital SLR (aka an "expensive camera") has a memory buffer, so the shot-to-shot time is primarily dictated by the camera hardware, not the memory card. Doing a *very* long burst will cause a slowdown. In this case, a faster memory card would help. But frankly, I find such situations to be exceedingly rare and generally avoidable.
If your camera is expensive, but doesn't have a memory buffer, then it's probably not very speed performance-oriented. Your price is probably going into some other feature, such as small size or image resolution.
Buying a fast memory card is more like putting a performance exhaust on your car, since it increases the speed incrementally.
Camera Ricers.
Police budgets being what they are, the cops aren't likely to be hanging out at coffee joints
I don't know what universe you live in, where cops don't hang around at coffee joints...
Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that Homer Simpson doesn't like doughnuts.
mmmm. doughnuts.
Ever whipped out a calculator when trying to pay a tab at a restaurant?
Calculator? Why yes I have. And I am ashamed to say that I am a lazy college graduate.
No, but since there are fewer germs on a toilet seat, it's perfectly cool to lick your own toilet seat. Especially since they're your own.
You mean Nairobi, Kenya?
Me too. I think that on New Year's Day, at least seven spammers emailed me to wish me a more fulfilling and enlarged new year!
Consumer Reports gives these reports for those who don't have time to mess around with their computer. Dell, and Compaq/HP have service plans for their computers. They also have a known reliability record (unlike some of the smaller Taiwanese retailers). Sure, their service departments might not always be that great and they might be in India, but it's better than nothing.
"Best Buy" in consumer reports does not mean "Best Deal". It means lowest-risk-of-hassle deal, that gets the job done, at a reasonable price point.
Sure, I could go and build your own car and get a great deal and a lot of horsepower out of it, but I'm sure as hell not going to do that, because I don't have time to mess with that. I need to get from point A to point B reasonably fast, and in under a couple grand. And I want someone to be there if my car craps out.