"If frequencies can (or could, rather) be bought and sold just like any other product (land), there is absolutely no reason why a few companies would own the spectrum."
So if you "buy" a portion of the spectrum, how do you know I'm not going to come around with a bigger transmitter (or a jammer) and screw up your day? Oh right... regulation.
It's quite possible. For example, if you need to support different bands you may not have the space or budget to put in a completely separate radio system for each. So you make some parts multi-frequency. Instead of a nicely tuned radio subsystem you end up with design compromises, and the whole thing is a little less efficient.
Piling more radios into a case of a given size means things have to be packed closer together, which can cause heat problems even if you're not actually producing any more heat.
Also, most components are integrated on a single IC these days and the extra bits, even when not in use, can still have power consumption consequences.
If you've never made a simple error in a calculation then you haven't done very many (or any).
There's always a chance you'll make a simple error. The fewer unnecessary conversions you have to do, the better. Even worse is the suggestion by the GP that the meaning of units be context dependent. Now not only is there a problem with errors converting back and forth but also differences in opinion or interpretation of what the "context" is.
Thus the cleaning up. Obviously that clause doesn't always apply, it isn't clear it should always apply, the definition of a treaty isn't clear, etc, otherwise there wouldn't even be a question of a "sole executive agreement."
Actually, it seems that the US government doesn't really work the way you think. There doesn't seem to be anything clearly illegal about a president "making law" by signing treaties unilaterally. The article says it's even fairly routine in some situations.
Perhaps your constitution needs a bit of a clean up. Such as requiring that treaties be ratified by your legislative branch before becoming law.
From the article it sounds like the app is basically a wifi only VOIP app. There are LOTS of those in the app store, and there always have been. Apple has apparently even decided to allow VOIP over 3G now, and some apps that do that, in the store.
You can learn sign language perfectly well if you can hear. Lots of people can.
Some people feel the need to take seeing the silver lining too far. Our kid is deaf? Oh, that's perfect! We were hoping for that all along! Hopefully the next one will be too! Hey, EVERYBODY should be deaf!
Your error is at least as great as someone who says Facebook usage definitely causes STD increase. Correlation != causation is misleading at best. The proper statement is correlation !==> causation: correlation does not imply causation.
If it works as well as they showed (somehow I suspect they showed the best case scenarios), it still needs some manual cleanup. It was impressive, but the content aware fill left behind some pretty jarring artifacts, even in the tiny little YouTube window. It's a nice starting point, and should make editing go faster, but it's not going to replace a professional retoucher.
What else did you mention before? I can say the sky is blue and then go off on a rant about how the moon landings were faked by the notorious fascist communist Obama and people will think I'm a lunatic too.
Suggesting that HFCS has a role in obesity isn't exactly a risky posting strategy on Slashot.
Maybe you've noticed that Iran, for example, has lots of pretty barren land that invading forces need to cross. Boom. No real damage to their country. And would "Russia" decide to retaliate with nukes? Against a civilian target? For having their troops blown up on foreign soil? That would be a tough sell to the rest of the world. As for North Korea, what are you willing to bet they wouldn't nuke any invading forces, and damn the collateral damage?
Besides, as you point out, news outlets love to talk about how dangerous an invasion of a nuclear armed country is. Strangely, most of the world's nuclear powers are democracies, which means the people (the same ones the news outlets talk to) are in charge. A democracy can't really start or wage a war that the populace is massively against. A country with a few nukes (or possibly with a few nukes) doesn't have to be an actual credible military threat. It just has to sound good.
Since we're talking about whether higher resolution sensors are beneficial, the diffraction limit is not a "sensor problem" but rather an optics problem, and it is one of the major factors in what I'm talking about. A small (cell phone or compact camera size, for example) lens simply has less resolving power than a large lens, even if both are optically perfect, due to diffraction effects. There's no point in having a sensor that is higher resolution than the diffraction limited image produced by the lens.
In reality, cheap lenses aren't particularly close to being diffraction limited so you need an even lower resolution sensor before you start seeing insufficient return to offset the poorer signal to noise from smaller sensor pixels. Also, cheap lenses frequently get dramatically softer as you increase the aperture anyway. It's not unusual for a cheap lens to give the best image at f8 even though, as you point out, many common sensors these days capture resolution in excess of the diffraction limit at that aperture.
In camera sensor design you're further ahead to just design your sensor with bigger pixels (and less resolution). Technically you could achieve the same noise performance by averaging smaller pixels but the overhead, in the form of non-light sensitive region around the pixel, kills you.
There are applications when it's useful to oversample, but photography isn't really one of them.
"Detectable signal" and "significant signal" are two different things in photography. To start with, very, very few people ever look at a picture that isn't downsampled. Even if you did, you need a decent amount of high frequency signal to make it worth sacrificing the noise performance required to capture it. Most photos from compact cameras and below would be FAR more pleasing if the sensors had half the resolution (which would still be much higher than the resolution anybody looks at compact camera photos at) and took the corresponding noise reduction.
Your 50 mm f/1.8 is not a particularly cheap lens (almost certainly much more expensive to make than the lens on a compact camera), and the 50 mm f/1.8s are known to be a very cheap lens to manufacture in good quality.
No, it doesn't. The lens system of the camera only has a certain resolving ability. Once you pass that point, you can make the sensor as high resolution as you want and you're just wasting your time because the lens isn't passing information at that level of detail anyway. Basically, you're measuring blur more and more finely.
Take a picture from anything less than a high end SLR or medium format camera and zoom in until you're actually looking at one image pixel to one screen pixel. Now tell me how good the image looks. Pretty crappy, hey? That's because the lens isn't capable of producing a decent image at even the resolution of the current sensor, never mind a better one.
I think a $50,000+ electron microscope would qualify as "the most high-powered applications," particularly in the context of the article, which is talking about cell phone cameras.
Slashdot Mirror
"If frequencies can (or could, rather) be bought and sold just like any other product (land), there is absolutely no reason why a few companies would own the spectrum."
So if you "buy" a portion of the spectrum, how do you know I'm not going to come around with a bigger transmitter (or a jammer) and screw up your day? Oh right... regulation.
It's quite possible. For example, if you need to support different bands you may not have the space or budget to put in a completely separate radio system for each. So you make some parts multi-frequency. Instead of a nicely tuned radio subsystem you end up with design compromises, and the whole thing is a little less efficient.
Piling more radios into a case of a given size means things have to be packed closer together, which can cause heat problems even if you're not actually producing any more heat.
Also, most components are integrated on a single IC these days and the extra bits, even when not in use, can still have power consumption consequences.
If you've never made a simple error in a calculation then you haven't done very many (or any).
There's always a chance you'll make a simple error. The fewer unnecessary conversions you have to do, the better. Even worse is the suggestion by the GP that the meaning of units be context dependent. Now not only is there a problem with errors converting back and forth but also differences in opinion or interpretation of what the "context" is.
The pronunciation of gigabyte as "jigga"byte is less common but it is correct.
You know, that's the same argument Americans use for not adopting metric.
I think there's a certain Mars probe that might argue you shouldn't screw around with measurement units too much.
Thus the cleaning up. Obviously that clause doesn't always apply, it isn't clear it should always apply, the definition of a treaty isn't clear, etc, otherwise there wouldn't even be a question of a "sole executive agreement."
Actually, it seems that the US government doesn't really work the way you think. There doesn't seem to be anything clearly illegal about a president "making law" by signing treaties unilaterally. The article says it's even fairly routine in some situations.
Perhaps your constitution needs a bit of a clean up. Such as requiring that treaties be ratified by your legislative branch before becoming law.
They might kill it for the interface all right. That was a stupid move, copying Apple's interface exactly.
From the article it sounds like the app is basically a wifi only VOIP app. There are LOTS of those in the app store, and there always have been. Apple has apparently even decided to allow VOIP over 3G now, and some apps that do that, in the store.
You can learn sign language perfectly well if you can hear. Lots of people can.
Some people feel the need to take seeing the silver lining too far. Our kid is deaf? Oh, that's perfect! We were hoping for that all along! Hopefully the next one will be too! Hey, EVERYBODY should be deaf!
Maybe not, but Faceherpes is pretty scary.
"but doesn't cause it"
Your error is at least as great as someone who says Facebook usage definitely causes STD increase. Correlation != causation is misleading at best. The proper statement is correlation !==> causation: correlation does not imply causation.
Not unless your job is doing half assed edits.
If it works as well as they showed (somehow I suspect they showed the best case scenarios), it still needs some manual cleanup. It was impressive, but the content aware fill left behind some pretty jarring artifacts, even in the tiny little YouTube window. It's a nice starting point, and should make editing go faster, but it's not going to replace a professional retoucher.
I'm so sad you're currently modded interesting instead of funny.
What else did you mention before? I can say the sky is blue and then go off on a rant about how the moon landings were faked by the notorious fascist communist Obama and people will think I'm a lunatic too.
Suggesting that HFCS has a role in obesity isn't exactly a risky posting strategy on Slashot.
Maybe you've noticed that Iran, for example, has lots of pretty barren land that invading forces need to cross. Boom. No real damage to their country. And would "Russia" decide to retaliate with nukes? Against a civilian target? For having their troops blown up on foreign soil? That would be a tough sell to the rest of the world. As for North Korea, what are you willing to bet they wouldn't nuke any invading forces, and damn the collateral damage?
Besides, as you point out, news outlets love to talk about how dangerous an invasion of a nuclear armed country is. Strangely, most of the world's nuclear powers are democracies, which means the people (the same ones the news outlets talk to) are in charge. A democracy can't really start or wage a war that the populace is massively against. A country with a few nukes (or possibly with a few nukes) doesn't have to be an actual credible military threat. It just has to sound good.
Since we're talking about whether higher resolution sensors are beneficial, the diffraction limit is not a "sensor problem" but rather an optics problem, and it is one of the major factors in what I'm talking about. A small (cell phone or compact camera size, for example) lens simply has less resolving power than a large lens, even if both are optically perfect, due to diffraction effects. There's no point in having a sensor that is higher resolution than the diffraction limited image produced by the lens.
In reality, cheap lenses aren't particularly close to being diffraction limited so you need an even lower resolution sensor before you start seeing insufficient return to offset the poorer signal to noise from smaller sensor pixels. Also, cheap lenses frequently get dramatically softer as you increase the aperture anyway. It's not unusual for a cheap lens to give the best image at f8 even though, as you point out, many common sensors these days capture resolution in excess of the diffraction limit at that aperture.
In camera sensor design you're further ahead to just design your sensor with bigger pixels (and less resolution). Technically you could achieve the same noise performance by averaging smaller pixels but the overhead, in the form of non-light sensitive region around the pixel, kills you.
There are applications when it's useful to oversample, but photography isn't really one of them.
"Detectable signal" and "significant signal" are two different things in photography. To start with, very, very few people ever look at a picture that isn't downsampled. Even if you did, you need a decent amount of high frequency signal to make it worth sacrificing the noise performance required to capture it. Most photos from compact cameras and below would be FAR more pleasing if the sensors had half the resolution (which would still be much higher than the resolution anybody looks at compact camera photos at) and took the corresponding noise reduction.
Your 50 mm f/1.8 is not a particularly cheap lens (almost certainly much more expensive to make than the lens on a compact camera), and the 50 mm f/1.8s are known to be a very cheap lens to manufacture in good quality.
They pretty nicely refute the guy he replied to though.
He means fixed focus lenses.
No, it doesn't. The lens system of the camera only has a certain resolving ability. Once you pass that point, you can make the sensor as high resolution as you want and you're just wasting your time because the lens isn't passing information at that level of detail anyway. Basically, you're measuring blur more and more finely.
Take a picture from anything less than a high end SLR or medium format camera and zoom in until you're actually looking at one image pixel to one screen pixel. Now tell me how good the image looks. Pretty crappy, hey? That's because the lens isn't capable of producing a decent image at even the resolution of the current sensor, never mind a better one.
I think a $50,000+ electron microscope would qualify as "the most high-powered applications," particularly in the context of the article, which is talking about cell phone cameras.
Wasn't Steam, it was Ubisoft: http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/02/27/163226/The-Awful-Anti-Pirate-System-That-Will-Probably-Work
No saving unless you're connected to their servers. And since you're using their bandwidth and disk space, you really ought to be paying for it....