The orbital mechanics of that is insanely complicated (and unlikely). Plus, where is this "twelfth planet" now? Why did it cause so much havok on only a single approach and hasn't done squat since?
They're tiny. And the probably didn't become a planet (or large planetoid - even all together they're not very big) because Jupiter's gravity keeps things well stirred up.
Android - lets them make sure they're the search (see "search") and advertising provider on lots of mobile phones. Also ensures that if Apple decides to go with Bing one day, Google doesn't get locked out. Android also doesn't have much of an incremental cost. Phone calls do.
Google Earth/Maps - advertising, recording search terms.
See the pattern? I understand very well why it's free. Do you? Search, Earth/Maps, all fine. Google's ads stay unobtrusive and their monitoring is at least a little isolated from the real world. They get my IP address and that's about it. I don't use GMail because I don't really want Google reading my e-mail and the work stuff has medical confidentiality concerns. I really don't want Google listening to my phone calls either, and how they're going to make ads in phone calls unobtrusive? At the moment they seem happy to piggyback it on GMail so you get the GMail ads, but eventually they're going to want to set it up so it's a dedicated app, on smart phones, for example.
Are you kidding? Google rakes in cash, immediately, on search. They offer that service specifically because it allows them to show you ads, and collect information about you. The ads are small and unobtrusive and the information is not particularly closely connected to anything in the real world, so of course I use Google search.
How exactly do you put ads on a phone call unobtrusively? And phone calls ARE connected to some important real world items, such as phone numbers. Deleting cookies is a lot less of a pain than changing my phone number (and those of everyone I called).
It's exactly like saying someone weighs 100 kg. It's technically nonsensical but commonly done. And it does make sense if you have one extra bit of information (100 kg in a gravitational field of 9.81 m/s or 26 amps of 110 V AC).
Good luck with that. Cell carriers know that their voice plans are dead weight now. Very profitable dead weight. Notice how the iPad has a data only plan and the sim cards are disabled so they won't work in a regular phone?
So what you're saying is you'd like to have access to unlimited TV shows, as they're aired, for a quarter or less of what cable would cost you? Yeah, me too.
You can find examples of the same sort of thing in C. Most of the trouble people have with pointers stems from not having to work with memory addressing in assembly. When you manage all your own memory yourself it's very obvious why using an uninitialized pointer is bad, what happens when you take a pointer and add a number to it, etc.
In my digital design course we had to build a simple computer. After we'd demonstrated adders made out of NAND gates we were allowed to use an arithmetic unit chip, and wired things up with latches etc. so we had a workable bus. Programming was accomplished through DIP switches and output via an LED bank. Just like they used to do (substituting LEDs for light bulbs). When you programmed those things you made sure your code was efficient otherwise your hand would get tired flipping the switches.
The really cool part was when we wired two of them together.
You're a dangerous biker then. You're a vehicle and it's your job to keep yourself safe and not endanger those around you. If you can't "afford" to properly shoulder check when changing lanes then you need to a) slow down b) plan further in advance c) get a mirror, d) get appropriate eyewear and/or e) whatever else you have to do. It should never be an issue when turning because you should not ever be turning across traffic coming at you from behind.
The guy in the car can't hear other cars either. Or bikes. Does he get a pass when he slams into someone because he "couldn't afford" to shoulder check?
My sister gave me one of those Dr. Evil stuffed characters that says catch lines from the movies when you smack it. Then I moved to a city nine hours away. Not thinking, when I started the drive down I tossed Dr. Evil in the back seat. Every time I hit a seam in the highway (ie constantly) he'd repeat one of about a half dozen phrases.
If I hadn't managed to make Dr. Evil a sufficiently soft nest in a blanket he'd have ended up on the side of the highway.
"It seems like Google is tending to take the MS route - they don't just want to provide a service, they want to control how you can access it."
Of course they do. Google is an advertising company. They have no interest at all in providing services to you, they want to provide ads. Everything else is just the means of getting you to look (listen in future?) to the ads.
Insanely cheap. And ad free. Google's free services are ad supported. If you don't want ads, you have to pay. So precedent says you'll have two choices - pay for voice calling or put up with ads when you make calls.
Except for the little problem not being able to get an actual number where you live. I'm sure everybody I know would just love to call me internationally.
You could design a sensor that had adjacent pixels with different sensitivities. That's hardware. You can't do it in software, at least not usefully. Current sensors do not support individual pixel addressing or gain adjustment. At best you have to read a whole line at a time.
The trick of taking an intermediate reading off the sensor doesn't benefit from having extra pixels, or adjusting pixel sensitivities individually.
Since it takes a certain amount of chip area to support each pixel, breaking your sensor into more pixels and then averaging them back together, as the original poster suggests, LOSES you noise performance (and therefore dynamic range, according to your definition), rather than increasing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Good luck. The observed variations are way too small to suddenly make the Earth 500 years old or dinosaurs even less.
The orbital mechanics of that is insanely complicated (and unlikely). Plus, where is this "twelfth planet" now? Why did it cause so much havok on only a single approach and hasn't done squat since?
They're tiny. And the probably didn't become a planet (or large planetoid - even all together they're not very big) because Jupiter's gravity keeps things well stirred up.
Search - advertising and recording search terms
GMail - advertising and indexing your e-mail
Android - lets them make sure they're the search (see "search") and advertising provider on lots of mobile phones. Also ensures that if Apple decides to go with Bing one day, Google doesn't get locked out. Android also doesn't have much of an incremental cost. Phone calls do.
Google Earth/Maps - advertising, recording search terms.
See the pattern? I understand very well why it's free. Do you? Search, Earth/Maps, all fine. Google's ads stay unobtrusive and their monitoring is at least a little isolated from the real world. They get my IP address and that's about it. I don't use GMail because I don't really want Google reading my e-mail and the work stuff has medical confidentiality concerns. I really don't want Google listening to my phone calls either, and how they're going to make ads in phone calls unobtrusive? At the moment they seem happy to piggyback it on GMail so you get the GMail ads, but eventually they're going to want to set it up so it's a dedicated app, on smart phones, for example.
Are you kidding? Google rakes in cash, immediately, on search. They offer that service specifically because it allows them to show you ads, and collect information about you. The ads are small and unobtrusive and the information is not particularly closely connected to anything in the real world, so of course I use Google search.
How exactly do you put ads on a phone call unobtrusively? And phone calls ARE connected to some important real world items, such as phone numbers. Deleting cookies is a lot less of a pain than changing my phone number (and those of everyone I called).
It's possible. On the other hand, Google doesn't offer Voice publicly, and doesn't offer it in ANY country outside the US.
Thanks, but no, I'm not.
It's exactly like saying someone weighs 100 kg. It's technically nonsensical but commonly done. And it does make sense if you have one extra bit of information (100 kg in a gravitational field of 9.81 m/s or 26 amps of 110 V AC).
Good luck with that. Cell carriers know that their voice plans are dead weight now. Very profitable dead weight. Notice how the iPad has a data only plan and the sim cards are disabled so they won't work in a regular phone?
Now you need to ask yourself WHY they're giving you these things for free (and if they're going to stay free). It's not free for them.
I'd rather pay Skype the $4 a month, thanks. Not to mention Google Voice isn't even available.
And look how polite and well mannered you turned out to be!
So what you're saying is you'd like to have access to unlimited TV shows, as they're aired, for a quarter or less of what cable would cost you? Yeah, me too.
Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, Google has a nasty habit of creating products and then restricting them for no particular reason.
You can find examples of the same sort of thing in C. Most of the trouble people have with pointers stems from not having to work with memory addressing in assembly. When you manage all your own memory yourself it's very obvious why using an uninitialized pointer is bad, what happens when you take a pointer and add a number to it, etc.
Oh, the luxury.
In my digital design course we had to build a simple computer. After we'd demonstrated adders made out of NAND gates we were allowed to use an arithmetic unit chip, and wired things up with latches etc. so we had a workable bus. Programming was accomplished through DIP switches and output via an LED bank. Just like they used to do (substituting LEDs for light bulbs). When you programmed those things you made sure your code was efficient otherwise your hand would get tired flipping the switches.
The really cool part was when we wired two of them together.
You're a dangerous biker then. You're a vehicle and it's your job to keep yourself safe and not endanger those around you. If you can't "afford" to properly shoulder check when changing lanes then you need to a) slow down b) plan further in advance c) get a mirror, d) get appropriate eyewear and/or e) whatever else you have to do. It should never be an issue when turning because you should not ever be turning across traffic coming at you from behind.
The guy in the car can't hear other cars either. Or bikes. Does he get a pass when he slams into someone because he "couldn't afford" to shoulder check?
Or charge careless drivers.
My sister gave me one of those Dr. Evil stuffed characters that says catch lines from the movies when you smack it. Then I moved to a city nine hours away. Not thinking, when I started the drive down I tossed Dr. Evil in the back seat. Every time I hit a seam in the highway (ie constantly) he'd repeat one of about a half dozen phrases.
If I hadn't managed to make Dr. Evil a sufficiently soft nest in a blanket he'd have ended up on the side of the highway.
Most plastic bags have warnings about not putting them over your head. Haven't seen any anti-kid-upside-down-in-water-filled-bucket warnings yet.
"It seems like Google is tending to take the MS route - they don't just want to provide a service, they want to control how you can access it."
Of course they do. Google is an advertising company. They have no interest at all in providing services to you, they want to provide ads. Everything else is just the means of getting you to look (listen in future?) to the ads.
Insanely cheap. And ad free. Google's free services are ad supported. If you don't want ads, you have to pay. So precedent says you'll have two choices - pay for voice calling or put up with ads when you make calls.
Except for the little problem not being able to get an actual number where you live. I'm sure everybody I know would just love to call me internationally.
Since we're talking about HDR, those changes in dynamic range are basically rounding errors.
You could design a sensor that had adjacent pixels with different sensitivities. That's hardware. You can't do it in software, at least not usefully. Current sensors do not support individual pixel addressing or gain adjustment. At best you have to read a whole line at a time.
The trick of taking an intermediate reading off the sensor doesn't benefit from having extra pixels, or adjusting pixel sensitivities individually.
Since it takes a certain amount of chip area to support each pixel, breaking your sensor into more pixels and then averaging them back together, as the original poster suggests, LOSES you noise performance (and therefore dynamic range, according to your definition), rather than increasing it.