Are you disagreeing with me about the pope's major purpose? How about you a) actually express an opinion and b) back it up with some sort of reasoning?
Okay. His major purpose in life is to try to get as many people to believe the stuff written in his book of choice, including the magic parts, is the literal truth. As part of that, he has to convince them that the stuff written in everyone ELSE's book of choice is lies, at best misguided, but more likely evil. His organization, which derives it's take on reality from a book, has a long history of violently opposing stuff written in other books, or interpretations of stuff written in their own book they don't agree with, then eventually deciding, well, maybe it's true after all (or at least not burning at the stake worthy). You might even say that the bible has confused the church about reality.
Now he'd like us to believe that books (well, the right kind of books anyway) tell the truth and don't confuse us about reality, but that this newfangled electronic stuff does.
Apple has been neglecting FCP for a long time. You'll notice they didn't do any NEW development in Cocoa, and any old products that were getting any kind of major development got rewritten in Cocoa.
As I said, Apple should have cut Adobe off at least five years ago. They had plenty of warning. Any talking about 64-bit Carbon Apple did was also over and done with years ago. Adobe still hasn't made any moves. They've had LOTS of warning.
They should have been moving over to Cocoa long before 64-bit Carbon was even a possibility. It wouldn't have been an enormous project either. It's just the UI and a few other bits and pieces. Photoshop et. al. could use a UI rethink anyway.
But I can see, by your use of "fanbois" that you're probably not going to be swayed by rational argument anyway.
What are you disputing? That Apple didn't tell people Carbon was a crutch, ten years ago? They did. I was there.
Apple did make a mistake. They kept Carbon going for too long, and they did mention 64-bit Carbon. Both were dumb. Both were likely done to try to keep Adobe functioning.
As for FCP, Apple just hasn't gotten to it yet. Hints are that they finally have.
There's an easier way, which is commonly used: averaging.
You don't actually have to change the light frequency. Since the noise is random, simply imaging N times and averaging the result will give you a sqrt(N) improvement in SNR. Astrophotographers do this when they stack multiple images, and it's also used in MRI scans when you acquire the same image multiple times and average.
A continuous version just involves imaging longer. A standard digital camera will leave it's shutter (electronic or mechanical) open for a set period of time. To form an image of a given brightness, the CCD amplifier then has to amplify the recorded signal (signal + noise) by a certain amount (which is set by the ISO setting on the camera).
If you leave the shutter open longer, more photons accumulate in the CCD wells, and the amplifier has to amplify less (lower ISO). The CCD case is a little more complicated because some of the noise sources ALSO increase over a longer exposure, but some don't, so you get a less noisy image.
As in most imaging modalities, in this case the amount of averages (or the length of time you can image) is limited by what you're imaging. If it's not alive then go to town - scan it for days if necessary. If it is alive and your scan time is too long, it's probably going to move and ruin your picture. At some point it will hop off the table and want a hamburger.
My Core Duo (not Core 2) mini from several years ago plays 720p just fine, via Plex. I think you could probably pick one up for about the price of an Apple TV. If you've got a Firewire enabled cable box I've got a Python script that turns it into a PVR that records on command from iCal too.
We can do a little better than theory. If you assume you can perfectly account for the scattering that happens when photons go through the subject you're basically left with a regular imaging problem. You've got some sort of detector, probably a CCD, and you've got photons hitting it. Your detector has such and such a quantum efficiency, and is subject to a certain amount of noise from various sources. Even if you postulate a perfect detector, at any temperature above absolute zero it's still going to be subject to thermal noise, which can be quantified, and that puts a hard limit on the minimum incoming light intensity you need.
Really, if you can find numbers for how much light is attenuated going through various materials (such as the skin, fat, bone, blood and brain in someone's head), assuming perfect reconstruction, the problem would come down to a simple exposure calculation that's more or less familiar to any photographer.
If Verizon wants the iPhone they will. There's no way Apple will allow someone to shut out their app store, or even offer a carrier-specific alternative, and a carrier needs Apple to do that.
With Android, on the other hand, the carriers can do whatever they want. So far they've gone along with Google, mostly.
Most people get one every two years because that's when they get a new one for free. Or rather, they start paying for a new one whether they get one or not.
I don't think we're really concerned whether YOU can root your phone going into the future. The question is whether Google has shot themselves in the foot by giving everything away. At the moment their business plan seems to be to collect information by being the default search on Android and to take a 30% cut on Market transactions.
Verizon et. al. has to be looking at that 30% and thinking it would be pretty cool if they got it instead of Google. And that's an excellent motivation to try to prevent the majority of their customers from using someone else's app market. It's probably enough to get them to put some thought into stopping you too.
True, although you might say that listening to a fetal heartbeat with a doppler ultrasound is like listening to the sound a car makes by feeding the output of a radar gun into a speaker.
The conversion of doppler us to audio is a small part of one us modality though. Even if you accept that you're actually listening to sounds, it's not true that "ultrasound is for listening to sounds inside the body" NOT imaging.
I was actually thinking more along the lines of what your NEXT phone is going to be like. In two years when your current one is a memory.
I don't know what you mean by "never seen it before." I bought a Razr unlocked, from a non-carrier distributor, and it could do all sorts of things that the carrier locked ones couldn't. As I recall Verizon has one of the worst reputations for disabling features on their phones.
It might work on hands, if they manage to reconstruct better images. If you try and do CT you're going to get a lot of artifacts from the bones though.
I think you'd find that in order to get enough photons through your head, for example, in some sort of reasonable time, you'd need to use a very high power light. Probably high enough power that it would tend to vaporize your subjects.
These guys can (sort of) reconstruct an image from scattered light. That doesn't address the problem of convincing enough light to measure to go through in the first place.
There's a difference between a photon every once in a while making it through and having enough to form an image. There are likely a lot of objects that you simply can't form a reasonable image through without using enough light to vaporize them.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I see! The pope is a Catholic "fanbois." Nice.
Sure, I'll buy that. MS should be granted a patent for video compression/decompression on fixed function video cards.
"Some of the stuff written in his book of choice, including the magic parts"
Happy?
Are you disagreeing with me about the pope's major purpose? How about you a) actually express an opinion and b) back it up with some sort of reasoning?
Okay. His major purpose in life is to try to get as many people to believe the stuff written in his book of choice, including the magic parts, is the literal truth. As part of that, he has to convince them that the stuff written in everyone ELSE's book of choice is lies, at best misguided, but more likely evil. His organization, which derives it's take on reality from a book, has a long history of violently opposing stuff written in other books, or interpretations of stuff written in their own book they don't agree with, then eventually deciding, well, maybe it's true after all (or at least not burning at the stake worthy). You might even say that the bible has confused the church about reality.
Now he'd like us to believe that books (well, the right kind of books anyway) tell the truth and don't confuse us about reality, but that this newfangled electronic stuff does.
Hm.
Apple has been neglecting FCP for a long time. You'll notice they didn't do any NEW development in Cocoa, and any old products that were getting any kind of major development got rewritten in Cocoa.
As I said, Apple should have cut Adobe off at least five years ago. They had plenty of warning. Any talking about 64-bit Carbon Apple did was also over and done with years ago. Adobe still hasn't made any moves. They've had LOTS of warning.
They should have been moving over to Cocoa long before 64-bit Carbon was even a possibility. It wouldn't have been an enormous project either. It's just the UI and a few other bits and pieces. Photoshop et. al. could use a UI rethink anyway.
But I can see, by your use of "fanbois" that you're probably not going to be swayed by rational argument anyway.
Good point. My parents probably didn't get the same satisfaction telling their friends about it either.
What are you disputing? That Apple didn't tell people Carbon was a crutch, ten years ago? They did. I was there.
Apple did make a mistake. They kept Carbon going for too long, and they did mention 64-bit Carbon. Both were dumb. Both were likely done to try to keep Adobe functioning.
As for FCP, Apple just hasn't gotten to it yet. Hints are that they finally have.
"I doubt they're going to produce a Flash-based phone with Photoshop thrown in."
I don't know, that kind of sounds like something Microsoft and Adobe would do.
Probably two products, just like everything else. MacPaint with iLife to replace Elements, and something else for the pro line to replace Photoshop.
We can only dream though. Photoshop will likely continue to stagger along with a crappy Cocoa port.
We did lots of timelines in my perfectly ordinary elementary school a couple of decades ago.
I would think most spam filters would do that automatically as they learn.
Symantec seems to think people still use character-for-character text matching spam filters that don't learn. Maybe Symantec products do.
There's an easier way, which is commonly used: averaging.
You don't actually have to change the light frequency. Since the noise is random, simply imaging N times and averaging the result will give you a sqrt(N) improvement in SNR. Astrophotographers do this when they stack multiple images, and it's also used in MRI scans when you acquire the same image multiple times and average.
A continuous version just involves imaging longer. A standard digital camera will leave it's shutter (electronic or mechanical) open for a set period of time. To form an image of a given brightness, the CCD amplifier then has to amplify the recorded signal (signal + noise) by a certain amount (which is set by the ISO setting on the camera).
If you leave the shutter open longer, more photons accumulate in the CCD wells, and the amplifier has to amplify less (lower ISO). The CCD case is a little more complicated because some of the noise sources ALSO increase over a longer exposure, but some don't, so you get a less noisy image.
As in most imaging modalities, in this case the amount of averages (or the length of time you can image) is limited by what you're imaging. If it's not alive then go to town - scan it for days if necessary. If it is alive and your scan time is too long, it's probably going to move and ruin your picture. At some point it will hop off the table and want a hamburger.
Buy a Mac Mini used off eBay?
My Core Duo (not Core 2) mini from several years ago plays 720p just fine, via Plex. I think you could probably pick one up for about the price of an Apple TV. If you've got a Firewire enabled cable box I've got a Python script that turns it into a PVR that records on command from iCal too.
We can do a little better than theory. If you assume you can perfectly account for the scattering that happens when photons go through the subject you're basically left with a regular imaging problem. You've got some sort of detector, probably a CCD, and you've got photons hitting it. Your detector has such and such a quantum efficiency, and is subject to a certain amount of noise from various sources. Even if you postulate a perfect detector, at any temperature above absolute zero it's still going to be subject to thermal noise, which can be quantified, and that puts a hard limit on the minimum incoming light intensity you need.
Really, if you can find numbers for how much light is attenuated going through various materials (such as the skin, fat, bone, blood and brain in someone's head), assuming perfect reconstruction, the problem would come down to a simple exposure calculation that's more or less familiar to any photographer.
If Verizon wants the iPhone they will. There's no way Apple will allow someone to shut out their app store, or even offer a carrier-specific alternative, and a carrier needs Apple to do that.
With Android, on the other hand, the carriers can do whatever they want. So far they've gone along with Google, mostly.
Four years, five years, whatever.
Most people get one every two years because that's when they get a new one for free. Or rather, they start paying for a new one whether they get one or not.
I don't think we're really concerned whether YOU can root your phone going into the future. The question is whether Google has shot themselves in the foot by giving everything away. At the moment their business plan seems to be to collect information by being the default search on Android and to take a 30% cut on Market transactions.
Verizon et. al. has to be looking at that 30% and thinking it would be pretty cool if they got it instead of Google. And that's an excellent motivation to try to prevent the majority of their customers from using someone else's app market. It's probably enough to get them to put some thought into stopping you too.
True, although you might say that listening to a fetal heartbeat with a doppler ultrasound is like listening to the sound a car makes by feeding the output of a radar gun into a speaker.
The conversion of doppler us to audio is a small part of one us modality though. Even if you accept that you're actually listening to sounds, it's not true that "ultrasound is for listening to sounds inside the body" NOT imaging.
I was actually thinking more along the lines of what your NEXT phone is going to be like. In two years when your current one is a memory.
I don't know what you mean by "never seen it before." I bought a Razr unlocked, from a non-carrier distributor, and it could do all sorts of things that the carrier locked ones couldn't. As I recall Verizon has one of the worst reputations for disabling features on their phones.
And they'll be happy to give you a new one that is a little better protected from "unauthorized tampering" than your current one.
Exactly. And thank you so much for spelling "loose" correctly.
I think that's what they're getting at.
It might work on hands, if they manage to reconstruct better images. If you try and do CT you're going to get a lot of artifacts from the bones though.
A sonogram is the image produced by an ultrasound machine. Ultrasound imaging is called "ultrasonography."
Listening to sounds within the body is called auscultation.
I think you'd find that in order to get enough photons through your head, for example, in some sort of reasonable time, you'd need to use a very high power light. Probably high enough power that it would tend to vaporize your subjects.
These guys can (sort of) reconstruct an image from scattered light. That doesn't address the problem of convincing enough light to measure to go through in the first place.
There's a difference between a photon every once in a while making it through and having enough to form an image. There are likely a lot of objects that you simply can't form a reasonable image through without using enough light to vaporize them.