The most likely scenario is that an impact knocks a rock off the surface of a planet or moon (Mercury, for example) with enough energy that the rock starts orbiting the sun instead of the planet. It would most likely be on a fairly eccentric orbit in that case and that orbit might cross the orbit of another planet (like the Earth). When the second planet happens to be in the same place as the rock, it falls as a meteor.
Oh, and a merchant certainly can refuse to accept a bitcoin payment from a person they think failed to pay. You can't refuse to take the official currency, but you're under no obligation to accept bitcoin.
My cousin who works at Starbucks tells me that if the customer's debit card doesn't work and he has no cash, the cashier is supposed to give him his coffee free. That's a policy that some people would, and probably do, exploit. The majority of people won't though, the loss is small, and repeat offenders probably do get caught. Cashiers remember regulars.
If someone uses a fake credit card, the merchant is out of luck. It takes a couple of months to fully verify a credit card transaction.
There are lots of reasons you're not going to be routinely paying for your coffee with bitcoin. The time it takes to verify the transaction seems like a minor one.
You'll note that I prefaced the paragraph with "usually" and "except for special circumstances."
But thank you, your Pennsylvania example illustrates my point - it's generally not practical to tax most held wealth (property being an exception), particularly when it's so easy to tax transactions instead.
Bitcoin proponents say all sorts of things, some more or less true, some ridiculous, and some in between. The fact is, bitcoin is very similar to a conventional currency, in both strengths and weaknesses except that it has some desirable properties of cash but is electronic.
When a merchant accepts a credit card or cash the transaction is essentially on the honor system. If the card is stolen or the cash is counterfeit, the merchant is simply out of luck. Very recently banks started using a PIN system so that in person transactions could be (sort of) verified in a minute or so. With bitcoin the merchant has a choice - accept the payment on the honor system, or wait a varying amount of time for a varying confidence verification. I don't think that's a major advantage or disadvantage, except that full verification with a bitcoin takes half an hour and with a credit card it takes something more like a month or two. That might be important in some circumstances, but doesn't really matter for most of us, most of the time.
I doubt bitcoin will become really mainstream because it lacks any strong advantage for most people, and has some drawbacks. The big drawback isn't verification time though, it's currency conversion. Even if you're using bitcoin regularly you're still likely going to be paid in your national currency, and will need it for many things, including paying taxes. Most people hate doing currency conversions.
There was no such claim. You quoted it yourself: "printing them with a process that only uses three colours." If you'd like to "prove me wrong" please point out a printing system that uses more than three colours. The system includes at the very least some source that encodes data using more than three colours, such as an image editing program and file format, a printer driver that accepts such data, and a printer that is designed to reproduce it.
You didn't bother to read the thread that you were replying to, posted something irrelevant that is factually correct in isolation and misleading at best in context, and now are fighting bitterly to avoid admitting that you didn't have the slightest idea what the thread you posted in was about.
And please stop with the "I proved you wrong" stuff. It's juvenile.
Yes, iTunes works. HBO has enough good content that I'd actually subscribe if there was a reasonable way of doing so. Other producers occasionally have something good but the signal to noise ratio isn't high enough that I'd pay for any kind of subscription.
I think you're mixing up observed cause and effect with morality. If you go walking through a bad neighbourhood displaying wealth you might well get attacked whereas if you had kept a lower profile, you wouldn't have. That doesn't make the attacker's actions morally defensible, but it is something that is likely to happen.
If you take an attractive and seductively dressed woman and dump her into the yard in a male prison during exercise time, she's more likely to get raped than under other circumstances. That doesn't mean the rape is okay or that the prisoners aren't guilty, just that it's more likely to happen. I think the woman would be quite reasonable to put some blame on you for contributing to her rape in that case. Inducing it, if you will.
Heavily advertising a TV show then not allowing people to watch it by legal means is very likely to increase the rate of piracy. You can argue about whether piracy is morally defensible under those circumstances but your moral arguments have nothing to do about whether or not it's likely to happen. If HBO is creating circumstances under which their show is more likely to be pirated then they are inducing it.
So how many colour channels do you suppose Adobe RGB has? CMYK anything LOOKS like it has four colour channels, but one of those is black so not really. If you like you can find the equation that demonstrates that CMYK and RGB are mathematically interchangeable. Still only three colour channels. CIE TIFF can contain LAB data but LAB is also based on... three primary colours. Of course, you can put whatever you want into a TIFF file but you won't find any software or hardware that knows what you're talking about.
I don't think you really understand what we're talking about. We're not talking about tweaking the colour space to decrease banding or extend the gamut a little bit. We're talking about adding a basic colour channel. A fourth primary colour, if you will.
Nope. Where I am the only option is to get HBO in a package, on top of basic and a separate fee for HD. As far as I can tell (they won't give you an actual price unless you let a representative contact you) it would cost somewhere around $40 a month. That's a bit much for one channel.
I don't know how it is in the US but in Canada Netflix will only sell you a package. And there's only one package. It is a lot more reasonably priced than the cable companies though.
I was watching Netflix at my cousin's house last night. The quality was horrible. A nice Pirate Bay download, even standard def, is far superior.
I'd sign up for HBO if there was a way to do so without paying my cable provider an obscene amount of money for Flip This Nanny and Douchebags Live Together 14 as well.
Nope, it's not. Quantization is the process of taking a continuous valued measurement and rounding, truncating or otherwise cramming it onto a discrete scale. For example, taking the value 5.382... and recording it as 5.
I COULD have said "sampling." Sampling is measuring a signal at several points. The measured values are on the same scale the original was - if you're sampling sound with a microphone, for example, the samples are on a continuous scale. We almost always then quantize the samples, putting them on a discrete scale that's suitable to store in a computer. But sampling/discretization and quantization are two separate things.
Discretization is a term used more in math and statistics, but I used it here because it specifically refers to going from a continuous representation to a discrete representation. Sampling can also be done on a signal that is already discrete. We usually call that "resampling." If you're sampling a discrete signal and your sampling rate is equal to or higher than the original you don't necessarily need to low pass filter.
Nope. Stars are essentially point sources, and so have a very high spatial frequency. If you had a hypothetical telescope that had a flat and infinite modulation transfer function your unfiltered star field would look like crap with all the aliasing. It's possible you could still measure distances between stars, depending on how extended those stars really are, and the distribution of the starfield, but it would look like crap and you'd get a better measurement with an appropriate low pass filter.
In reality there's no such thing as a lens or mirror (or microphone, or any other sensor) with a flat and infinite MTR so your lens itself is acting as a... wait for it... low pass filter. There are some examples of MTFs on this page: http://photo.net/learn/optics/mtf/. For doing realistic separation measurements in astronomy you want to make damn sure you're using an appropriate filter because you're generally looking at sources that are close together and hard to resolve. A little bit of aliasing will completely screw that up.
Actually, an efficient optical system has a sensor with a maximum frequency response that is similar to the rest of the system. There's no point in measuring resolution that your lens can't pass, and no point in passing frequencies your sensor can't detect. So the aliasing you'd see if you hacked the low pass filter out of a camera isn't anything like the aliasing you'd see if there wasn't any filtering at all.
It's quite possible there is some edge case where my broad generalization isn't quite true. An artist who likes pictures of featureless walls comes to mind. Or one who likes aliasing artifacts for their artistic value. It's fun watching you get more and more pedantic trying to find it though.
Whoops, forgot Slashdot ate things in angle brackets. Customs line should read:
Customs: Where are you going? What are you going to do there? [scans my passport] Oh shit! [stands up with hand on his gun] You, over there! [marches me to the special room, half a step behind and to the side, gun hand free].
I was offered a job in Philadelphia. I turned it down. I also try not to submit to conferences in the US.
I have a common name. There have been several people with my name over the last fifteen years that the US would like to chat with, but the current one seems particularly scary. Generally my crossing the US border goes like this:
Customs: Where are you going? What are you going to do there? Oh shit! You, over there!
After that I usually get interviewed for an hour or so and then they let me go. That applies to transits through the US too, so I have to be careful when booking connecting flights.
Once recently I was driving across the border and ended up getting handcuffed on the hood of my car with thirteen freaked out border guards pointing their guns at me. Then I was hauled off to an isolation cell (left in handcuffs, handcuffs cuffed to the bench). After about half an hour a border guard walked in, said "you aren't black, are you?" and after fingerprinting let me go.
The TSA themselves are pussycats. They seem to be limited to hand searching my bags and I (up to five separate times before boarding a flight).
Yes, I have lots of redress numbers. One customs agent actually read my whole file once and remarked on it. Then said they were still going to want to see me in the special room anyway (she didn't bother to escort me there).
I try not to go to the US, unless I'm with someone I want to scare the hell out of.
So long as the government requires a currency be accepted (i.e. hasn't lost interest in it), the currency retains value. If the government hasn't lost interest it will generally take action to limit hyperinflation as well. That can include (and has) setting mandatory prices. The currency may massively devalue internationally, but within a country, a sufficiently motivated government can dictate the value. If nothing else, you can still pay your taxes with it.
Bitcoin lacks any powerful group (such as an interested government) to control its value. If bitcoins were counterfeited, the value would free fall. If a large fraction of people came to believe bitcoins could be counterfeited, the value would free fall. Shenanigans at exchanges, flooding the market or anything else that shakes faith in bitcoin cause the value to fall in an unrestricted way. Announcements of large organizations accepting bitcoin and investment cause the value to rise in an unrestricted way.
He does seem to have neglected seaworthiness and housekeeping. But there's plenty to criticize in his decision to leave port as well. A fifty year old wooden square rigger, particularly one in poor repair, with a small crew with limited experience on the ship isn't the same thing as a naval capital ship. Even if a cruiser, for example, decided to go to sea in advance of a hurricane, you can bet the captain wouldn't be launching helicopters, auxiliaries or the zodiacs unless absolutely necessary.
I'm not complaining about anything. I'm replying to your erroneous assertion (you DID read the whole thread before replying, right?) that the existence of printers with eight inks somehow means they'll be able to reproduce data from a hypothetical four colour channel camera sensor.
I do like your fake quotes though. Please indicate where I said "there's no printer with 4 colours." What I DID say was "Too bad you're displaying them on a screen or printing them with a process that only uses three colours." If you bothered to understand what you're talking about, or even read my comments, you'd realize that the process is indeed three colour. Even if you imagine a four colour camera sensor, the file you store the data in is three colour channel, the software you use to edit it is three colour channel, the screen you show it on is three channel and the data you send to the printer driver is three channel. IF you could somehow send the four channel data to the printer you might be able to reproduce some extra colours (which the vast majority of humanity probably wouldn't be able to see anyway), but probably not very well since all those extra inks are formulated specifically to help reproduce RGB.
You know, you really should at least glance at the thread before you reply. The OP was enthusiastic about how a four colour channel camera (which this isn't) would improve visual reproduction because it would let you reproduce some intermediate wavelengths that would help better match differences in the frequency sensitivity of different peoples' eyes.
In the first place I doubt very much that there are big differences in the frequency sensitivity of peoples' eyes, except for tetrachromats and colour blind people, since it's determined by chemistry. But relevant to this thread, a four channel sensor wouldn't do you the slightest bit of good unless your screen and/or printer were also capable of reproducing those colours. Then someone replied that four plus colour channel printers are already common. As you point out, those help match the RGB of your other equipment better. But having an eight ink printer isn't going to do you the slightest bit of good trying to match a four channel camera when everything in between is three channel.
Yup, from what I've read I think it's likely the captain was a nut too. If he had survived he would probably be facing some serious repercussions. Possibly the other ship's officers need to be punished. That's why there's been an inquiry. But everyone who went out on that ship should have been capable of assessing the danger, and was given the opportunity not to go. There are well established laws and customs governing this sort of thing. We don't need more.
On another note, I don't understand why peer pressure is not an acceptable excuse for children or for war criminals, but it is for everyone in between.
You don't seem to know what we're talking about. Let me quote the OP:
"I've been hoping for 4-sensor cameras for ages. People only have three color sensors, but what those colors are vary a bit from person to person, and capturing 4 colors stands a better chance of getting images that look good for everyone."
Yes, more inks in your printer help it reproduce the RGB values that you capture with your camera, save in your files, display on your screen, and send to the printer. Just like in the example I gave, the K channel in CMYK helps make up for deficiencies in the mixing properties of the C, M and Y that don't let you make a proper black by mixing. Extra ink won't do squat to match extra colour information from a theoretical extra colour sensor in the camera though, because everything in between is RGB.
Yes, actually, I know lots of photographers. I calibrate my screen, and I use a printer I chose specifically because they do a good job of frequent calibration. Most professional photographers do. But if you haven't noticed, with the availability of digital cameras a LOT of people took up photography. Hardware screen calibrators are still a niche item, nowhere near as popular as cameras. In particular, Panasonic doesn't make any still cameras that are likely to be used extensively by professionals, so it's likely that even fewer people who shoot Panasonic would calibrate their equipment.
If you signal is already low pass filtered you don't need to low pass filter it. Sure, I'll give you that. You've still got antialiasing, you're just not doing it with a piece of glass.
Slashdot Mirror
They wouldn't mind an upgrade either, which is why they're doing one.
The most likely scenario is that an impact knocks a rock off the surface of a planet or moon (Mercury, for example) with enough energy that the rock starts orbiting the sun instead of the planet. It would most likely be on a fairly eccentric orbit in that case and that orbit might cross the orbit of another planet (like the Earth). When the second planet happens to be in the same place as the rock, it falls as a meteor.
Oh, and a merchant certainly can refuse to accept a bitcoin payment from a person they think failed to pay. You can't refuse to take the official currency, but you're under no obligation to accept bitcoin.
My cousin who works at Starbucks tells me that if the customer's debit card doesn't work and he has no cash, the cashier is supposed to give him his coffee free. That's a policy that some people would, and probably do, exploit. The majority of people won't though, the loss is small, and repeat offenders probably do get caught. Cashiers remember regulars.
If someone uses a fake credit card, the merchant is out of luck. It takes a couple of months to fully verify a credit card transaction.
There are lots of reasons you're not going to be routinely paying for your coffee with bitcoin. The time it takes to verify the transaction seems like a minor one.
You'll note that I prefaced the paragraph with "usually" and "except for special circumstances."
But thank you, your Pennsylvania example illustrates my point - it's generally not practical to tax most held wealth (property being an exception), particularly when it's so easy to tax transactions instead.
Bitcoin proponents say all sorts of things, some more or less true, some ridiculous, and some in between. The fact is, bitcoin is very similar to a conventional currency, in both strengths and weaknesses except that it has some desirable properties of cash but is electronic.
When a merchant accepts a credit card or cash the transaction is essentially on the honor system. If the card is stolen or the cash is counterfeit, the merchant is simply out of luck. Very recently banks started using a PIN system so that in person transactions could be (sort of) verified in a minute or so. With bitcoin the merchant has a choice - accept the payment on the honor system, or wait a varying amount of time for a varying confidence verification. I don't think that's a major advantage or disadvantage, except that full verification with a bitcoin takes half an hour and with a credit card it takes something more like a month or two. That might be important in some circumstances, but doesn't really matter for most of us, most of the time.
I doubt bitcoin will become really mainstream because it lacks any strong advantage for most people, and has some drawbacks. The big drawback isn't verification time though, it's currency conversion. Even if you're using bitcoin regularly you're still likely going to be paid in your national currency, and will need it for many things, including paying taxes. Most people hate doing currency conversions.
There was no such claim. You quoted it yourself: "printing them with a process that only uses three colours." If you'd like to "prove me wrong" please point out a printing system that uses more than three colours. The system includes at the very least some source that encodes data using more than three colours, such as an image editing program and file format, a printer driver that accepts such data, and a printer that is designed to reproduce it.
You didn't bother to read the thread that you were replying to, posted something irrelevant that is factually correct in isolation and misleading at best in context, and now are fighting bitterly to avoid admitting that you didn't have the slightest idea what the thread you posted in was about.
And please stop with the "I proved you wrong" stuff. It's juvenile.
Yes, iTunes works. HBO has enough good content that I'd actually subscribe if there was a reasonable way of doing so. Other producers occasionally have something good but the signal to noise ratio isn't high enough that I'd pay for any kind of subscription.
I think you're mixing up observed cause and effect with morality. If you go walking through a bad neighbourhood displaying wealth you might well get attacked whereas if you had kept a lower profile, you wouldn't have. That doesn't make the attacker's actions morally defensible, but it is something that is likely to happen.
If you take an attractive and seductively dressed woman and dump her into the yard in a male prison during exercise time, she's more likely to get raped than under other circumstances. That doesn't mean the rape is okay or that the prisoners aren't guilty, just that it's more likely to happen. I think the woman would be quite reasonable to put some blame on you for contributing to her rape in that case. Inducing it, if you will.
Heavily advertising a TV show then not allowing people to watch it by legal means is very likely to increase the rate of piracy. You can argue about whether piracy is morally defensible under those circumstances but your moral arguments have nothing to do about whether or not it's likely to happen. If HBO is creating circumstances under which their show is more likely to be pirated then they are inducing it.
So how many colour channels do you suppose Adobe RGB has? CMYK anything LOOKS like it has four colour channels, but one of those is black so not really. If you like you can find the equation that demonstrates that CMYK and RGB are mathematically interchangeable. Still only three colour channels. CIE TIFF can contain LAB data but LAB is also based on... three primary colours. Of course, you can put whatever you want into a TIFF file but you won't find any software or hardware that knows what you're talking about.
I don't think you really understand what we're talking about. We're not talking about tweaking the colour space to decrease banding or extend the gamut a little bit. We're talking about adding a basic colour channel. A fourth primary colour, if you will.
Nope. Where I am the only option is to get HBO in a package, on top of basic and a separate fee for HD. As far as I can tell (they won't give you an actual price unless you let a representative contact you) it would cost somewhere around $40 a month. That's a bit much for one channel.
I don't know how it is in the US but in Canada Netflix will only sell you a package. And there's only one package. It is a lot more reasonably priced than the cable companies though.
I was watching Netflix at my cousin's house last night. The quality was horrible. A nice Pirate Bay download, even standard def, is far superior.
I'd sign up for HBO if there was a way to do so without paying my cable provider an obscene amount of money for Flip This Nanny and Douchebags Live Together 14 as well.
Maybe I'll mail them a donation.
Nope, it's not. Quantization is the process of taking a continuous valued measurement and rounding, truncating or otherwise cramming it onto a discrete scale. For example, taking the value 5.382... and recording it as 5.
I COULD have said "sampling." Sampling is measuring a signal at several points. The measured values are on the same scale the original was - if you're sampling sound with a microphone, for example, the samples are on a continuous scale. We almost always then quantize the samples, putting them on a discrete scale that's suitable to store in a computer. But sampling/discretization and quantization are two separate things.
Discretization is a term used more in math and statistics, but I used it here because it specifically refers to going from a continuous representation to a discrete representation. Sampling can also be done on a signal that is already discrete. We usually call that "resampling." If you're sampling a discrete signal and your sampling rate is equal to or higher than the original you don't necessarily need to low pass filter.
Discretization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretization
Quantization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_(signal_processing)
Nope. Stars are essentially point sources, and so have a very high spatial frequency. If you had a hypothetical telescope that had a flat and infinite modulation transfer function your unfiltered star field would look like crap with all the aliasing. It's possible you could still measure distances between stars, depending on how extended those stars really are, and the distribution of the starfield, but it would look like crap and you'd get a better measurement with an appropriate low pass filter.
In reality there's no such thing as a lens or mirror (or microphone, or any other sensor) with a flat and infinite MTR so your lens itself is acting as a... wait for it... low pass filter. There are some examples of MTFs on this page: http://photo.net/learn/optics/mtf/. For doing realistic separation measurements in astronomy you want to make damn sure you're using an appropriate filter because you're generally looking at sources that are close together and hard to resolve. A little bit of aliasing will completely screw that up.
Actually, an efficient optical system has a sensor with a maximum frequency response that is similar to the rest of the system. There's no point in measuring resolution that your lens can't pass, and no point in passing frequencies your sensor can't detect. So the aliasing you'd see if you hacked the low pass filter out of a camera isn't anything like the aliasing you'd see if there wasn't any filtering at all.
It's quite possible there is some edge case where my broad generalization isn't quite true. An artist who likes pictures of featureless walls comes to mind. Or one who likes aliasing artifacts for their artistic value. It's fun watching you get more and more pedantic trying to find it though.
Whoops, forgot Slashdot ate things in angle brackets. Customs line should read:
Customs: Where are you going? What are you going to do there? [scans my passport] Oh shit! [stands up with hand on his gun] You, over there! [marches me to the special room, half a step behind and to the side, gun hand free].
I was offered a job in Philadelphia. I turned it down. I also try not to submit to conferences in the US.
I have a common name. There have been several people with my name over the last fifteen years that the US would like to chat with, but the current one seems particularly scary. Generally my crossing the US border goes like this:
Customs: Where are you going? What are you going to do there? Oh shit! You, over there!
After that I usually get interviewed for an hour or so and then they let me go. That applies to transits through the US too, so I have to be careful when booking connecting flights.
Once recently I was driving across the border and ended up getting handcuffed on the hood of my car with thirteen freaked out border guards pointing their guns at me. Then I was hauled off to an isolation cell (left in handcuffs, handcuffs cuffed to the bench). After about half an hour a border guard walked in, said "you aren't black, are you?" and after fingerprinting let me go.
The TSA themselves are pussycats. They seem to be limited to hand searching my bags and I (up to five separate times before boarding a flight).
Yes, I have lots of redress numbers. One customs agent actually read my whole file once and remarked on it. Then said they were still going to want to see me in the special room anyway (she didn't bother to escort me there).
I try not to go to the US, unless I'm with someone I want to scare the hell out of.
So long as the government requires a currency be accepted (i.e. hasn't lost interest in it), the currency retains value. If the government hasn't lost interest it will generally take action to limit hyperinflation as well. That can include (and has) setting mandatory prices. The currency may massively devalue internationally, but within a country, a sufficiently motivated government can dictate the value. If nothing else, you can still pay your taxes with it.
Bitcoin lacks any powerful group (such as an interested government) to control its value. If bitcoins were counterfeited, the value would free fall. If a large fraction of people came to believe bitcoins could be counterfeited, the value would free fall. Shenanigans at exchanges, flooding the market or anything else that shakes faith in bitcoin cause the value to fall in an unrestricted way. Announcements of large organizations accepting bitcoin and investment cause the value to rise in an unrestricted way.
He does seem to have neglected seaworthiness and housekeeping. But there's plenty to criticize in his decision to leave port as well. A fifty year old wooden square rigger, particularly one in poor repair, with a small crew with limited experience on the ship isn't the same thing as a naval capital ship. Even if a cruiser, for example, decided to go to sea in advance of a hurricane, you can bet the captain wouldn't be launching helicopters, auxiliaries or the zodiacs unless absolutely necessary.
I am not going to argue with your statement that my axiom is a tautology. :P
I'm not complaining about anything. I'm replying to your erroneous assertion (you DID read the whole thread before replying, right?) that the existence of printers with eight inks somehow means they'll be able to reproduce data from a hypothetical four colour channel camera sensor.
I do like your fake quotes though. Please indicate where I said "there's no printer with 4 colours." What I DID say was "Too bad you're displaying them on a screen or printing them with a process that only uses three colours." If you bothered to understand what you're talking about, or even read my comments, you'd realize that the process is indeed three colour. Even if you imagine a four colour camera sensor, the file you store the data in is three colour channel, the software you use to edit it is three colour channel, the screen you show it on is three channel and the data you send to the printer driver is three channel. IF you could somehow send the four channel data to the printer you might be able to reproduce some extra colours (which the vast majority of humanity probably wouldn't be able to see anyway), but probably not very well since all those extra inks are formulated specifically to help reproduce RGB.
You know, you really should at least glance at the thread before you reply. The OP was enthusiastic about how a four colour channel camera (which this isn't) would improve visual reproduction because it would let you reproduce some intermediate wavelengths that would help better match differences in the frequency sensitivity of different peoples' eyes.
In the first place I doubt very much that there are big differences in the frequency sensitivity of peoples' eyes, except for tetrachromats and colour blind people, since it's determined by chemistry. But relevant to this thread, a four channel sensor wouldn't do you the slightest bit of good unless your screen and/or printer were also capable of reproducing those colours. Then someone replied that four plus colour channel printers are already common. As you point out, those help match the RGB of your other equipment better. But having an eight ink printer isn't going to do you the slightest bit of good trying to match a four channel camera when everything in between is three channel.
Yup, from what I've read I think it's likely the captain was a nut too. If he had survived he would probably be facing some serious repercussions. Possibly the other ship's officers need to be punished. That's why there's been an inquiry. But everyone who went out on that ship should have been capable of assessing the danger, and was given the opportunity not to go. There are well established laws and customs governing this sort of thing. We don't need more.
On another note, I don't understand why peer pressure is not an acceptable excuse for children or for war criminals, but it is for everyone in between.
You don't seem to know what we're talking about. Let me quote the OP:
"I've been hoping for 4-sensor cameras for ages. People only have three color sensors, but what those colors are vary a bit from person to person, and capturing 4 colors stands a better chance of getting images that look good for everyone."
Yes, more inks in your printer help it reproduce the RGB values that you capture with your camera, save in your files, display on your screen, and send to the printer. Just like in the example I gave, the K channel in CMYK helps make up for deficiencies in the mixing properties of the C, M and Y that don't let you make a proper black by mixing. Extra ink won't do squat to match extra colour information from a theoretical extra colour sensor in the camera though, because everything in between is RGB.
Yes, actually, I know lots of photographers. I calibrate my screen, and I use a printer I chose specifically because they do a good job of frequent calibration. Most professional photographers do. But if you haven't noticed, with the availability of digital cameras a LOT of people took up photography. Hardware screen calibrators are still a niche item, nowhere near as popular as cameras. In particular, Panasonic doesn't make any still cameras that are likely to be used extensively by professionals, so it's likely that even fewer people who shoot Panasonic would calibrate their equipment.
If you signal is already low pass filtered you don't need to low pass filter it. Sure, I'll give you that. You've still got antialiasing, you're just not doing it with a piece of glass.