"Since I am a geek, I don't pretend to fully understand the artists thinking behind it and am even willing to admit that I personally think he might be blowing a bit of smoke. But the failing is mine, not his."
You'll never get it if you keep thinking that way. Just because some guy calls it art doesn't mean it's good art. Art is fundamentally a communication medium and if your communication is so opaque that nobody gets it then you've failed.
This is an interesting idea, but (a) the name is stupid and (b) if it's trying to make a social comment it seems to be missing the mark. We don't have any products that sell themselves again. An actual picture/sculpture/something-you'd-might-like-to-look at that randomly calls up FedEx and arranges for itself to be picked up and shipped back to the artist would be a nice comment on the behaviour of the major media companies.
Suppose my sensor registers 1 instead of zero, on average, when it is hit by ten photons. If my exposure is so short and the object I am imaging is so dim that I only collect five photons from it during each exposure, it will generally not register. I can average all the frames I want and I'm not going to get a good image of it.
Yes, it is simple math. Just not quite as simple as you're doing. You don't suppose you've discovered some novel concept that both amateur and professional astronomers have missed, do you? You better tell them - all the money they pour into larger apertures and better tracking is completely wasted!
A Faraday cage doesn't have to be grounded, depending on the application, but it prevents charge from building up on the cage. You're right, not being grounded probably wouldn't have much effect on the shielding against external EM.
A Faraday cage only cancels static electric fields. An EM field is not static, and it also has a magnetic component. A Faraday cage can shield against EM to some extent, but that shielding is most effective at a particular frequency (depending on design), is more effective when you use much more metal, and isn't ever perfect. Basically, the charges in the metal of the cage can't rearrange themselves instantly to cancel a changing field (the induced current can't be infinite).
To give you an example, before the use of active shielding, a typical hospital MRI scanner would be installed inside a room with tonnes of iron shielding. That's to shield against a narrow band signal. A wide band EMP designed to actually do damage should have no problem going through a bit of sheet metal in a car.
If you want to things with redshift you need to have a spectrometer. You could probably build one without too much trouble, but it would take more than hooking up a camera to a telescope.
"A 100 second exposure pic is equal to 100 one second exposure pics."
Not quite. Averaging multiple exposures lets you remove noise yes. Digital sensors are so sensitive that for reasonably bright objects what you say is true. But, if you want to image dimmer objects, you have to have a longer exposure simply to make sure you actually catch enough photons.
The same thing that happens when you run out of gas going 70 mph. Fortunately cars don't suddenly swerve violently, flip over and explode when the ignition is turned off, even if they're moving at the time.
A Faraday cage isn't perfect protection against EM, just static electric fields. The car is also not grounded, which doesn't help. Plus there are likely to be a good number of holes in the metal big enough to allow damaging frequencies to pass through.
I don't think they'll care. Nobody cares what method you use to put existing media into your brain, so long as you've paid for the privilege. A direct brain interface is just one more media format they can (re)charge you for.
Don't worry, if they're not getting something out of it, they won't do it.
I don't think that picture is accurate anyway. A lot of the data is probably handed to them. They might even be paid to take it in many cases. If you're somebody with something to sell you're going to want to make sure that your locations are accurately portrayed in people's navigation systems.
You don't feel bad about getting the Yellow Pages for free, do you?
If you're careful you can easily get a standalone GPS car navigation system for under $100. That includes the touch screen, map licensing, etc.
The navigation apps are NOW on sale for under $80. They didn't start that way. Prices have dropped rapidly due to competition. That indicates that the $100 price point they started at was unrealistic. $80 doesn't look like such a deal either, since you can get a standalone unit for not much more and Google and Nokia have evidently found that they can give away an equivalent product for free.
If you want to use Photoshop, buy yourself a stylus.
On the other hand, perhaps you've seen artists doing charcoal sketches? You know, where they use that giant stick of charcoal (that obscures where they're working), and then they smudge it with, gasp, their fingers?
The finger isn't great for everything, but it certainly works fine for a lot of tasks.
75 or so wpm isn't a world record or anything, but it's probably quite a bit faster than the average person can type, and very respectable.
His iPhone speed of 40 wpm is pretty fantastic, but the minimal finger movement and not needing to hit the keys hard can make up for the extra fingers you get to use on a full size keyboard. I'm even more impressed by his Treo speed.
GPS apps have been insanely overpriced. There was maybe justification for paying $100 for an actual GPS receiver and dedicated computer plus software, but charing $100 for some map data and a simple app to display it was never going to be a tenable practice. The navigation companies milked their hardware for a few years and got to milk their software for a year or so. Now they're going to have to compete.
"Hardware and software are very different beasts."
Again, you're just asserting things without any justification at all. That's not an argument, that's just saying the same thing over and over again. You're the one who's not thinking. That's two posts with zero content. I have to conclude you don't really have an argument.
There are many arguments in favour of reasonable patents. No, you don't get to demand that every single new category (that you invent) has to be separately justified.
"Incidentally, the reason for the name calling is simple. Interference by the PTO in my daily livelihood when all I'm doing is minding my own business is scummy and I respond to such scum in kind."
Ah, yes. You have an emotional involvement with the issue and can't think about it logically or objectively. That's too bad.
Okay, they'd surely sell a few, no matter what they released. Apple isn't really in the habit of aiming low though. And they do occasionally fail. The Apple TV didn't take off and quickly became a "hobby" that they could try and learn from.
Yes. This is why we have operating systems that support both modes. You can have an app that takes over the whole screen, or maximize a window to fill the whole screen. Or you can use apps that don't do this.
The author seems to be suggesting that all the operating systems of the future won't even allow the possibility of multiple windows or multiple apps sharing the screen. The smart phone interface will expand to take over everything.
I expect the tablet is going to be aimed squarely at the "high end netbook market." It will be a light, portable, fairly cheap (when compared to a macbook) device that can be used for everything you'd want to do on a netbook or ebook reader. Reading, e-mail, web browsing and light productivity, including Keynote/Powerpoint presentations.
I also expect it won't have a cell connection, or will be available without one. It won't be a carrier-subsidized device. Smart phone owners aren't going to want to pay for another contract, the cell carriers don't really want heavy data use devices on their networks anyway, and Apple hasn't had a very good experience with cell carriers.
There might be an iPhone-esque tablet, but there had better be an iPod Touch-esque one, or it's going to be in serious danger of flopping.
I mostly agree with what you've said, but disagree with your interpretation. Our computing tasks aren't moving from desktops to other things, we're doing NEW computing tasks using new devices.
There were a few people who read books on their desktops or laptops, but not many. E-book readers aren't taking any function away from regular computers, they're creating a whole new computing task. Ditto with TV-connected computers.
Kinda defensive, aren't you? Who said anything was wrong with it?
The article itself basically presents the facts, but it does mention that it's interesting that a bunch of companies that otherwise compete with each other are in fact cooperating to develop Linux.
In the wild it's freqently the other way around. If a wild dog/hyena/etc. is too slow or doesn't belong to a big enough pack, it might just get killed by the kitty. I suppose if a lone wolf was dumb enough to go up against a cougar for a kill it would meet the same end.
Slashdot Mirror
In the long run eBay stands to make a good deal of money, but I wouldn't count on anyone else making any.
"Since I am a geek, I don't pretend to fully understand the artists thinking behind it and am even willing to admit that I personally think he might be blowing a bit of smoke. But the failing is mine, not his."
You'll never get it if you keep thinking that way. Just because some guy calls it art doesn't mean it's good art. Art is fundamentally a communication medium and if your communication is so opaque that nobody gets it then you've failed.
This is an interesting idea, but (a) the name is stupid and (b) if it's trying to make a social comment it seems to be missing the mark. We don't have any products that sell themselves again. An actual picture/sculpture/something-you'd-might-like-to-look at that randomly calls up FedEx and arranges for itself to be picked up and shipped back to the artist would be a nice comment on the behaviour of the major media companies.
Actually, it sounds like he did create the tool, and there's no particular reason to believe he didn't create the data too.
Maybe he made the whole thing up.
My first thought was "why does everybody have to make everything a video?"
Suppose my sensor registers 1 instead of zero, on average, when it is hit by ten photons. If my exposure is so short and the object I am imaging is so dim that I only collect five photons from it during each exposure, it will generally not register. I can average all the frames I want and I'm not going to get a good image of it.
Yes, it is simple math. Just not quite as simple as you're doing. You don't suppose you've discovered some novel concept that both amateur and professional astronomers have missed, do you? You better tell them - all the money they pour into larger apertures and better tracking is completely wasted!
Faraday cages are not completely effective against EM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
A Faraday cage doesn't have to be grounded, depending on the application, but it prevents charge from building up on the cage. You're right, not being grounded probably wouldn't have much effect on the shielding against external EM.
A Faraday cage only cancels static electric fields. An EM field is not static, and it also has a magnetic component. A Faraday cage can shield against EM to some extent, but that shielding is most effective at a particular frequency (depending on design), is more effective when you use much more metal, and isn't ever perfect. Basically, the charges in the metal of the cage can't rearrange themselves instantly to cancel a changing field (the induced current can't be infinite).
To give you an example, before the use of active shielding, a typical hospital MRI scanner would be installed inside a room with tonnes of iron shielding. That's to shield against a narrow band signal. A wide band EMP designed to actually do damage should have no problem going through a bit of sheet metal in a car.
If you want to things with redshift you need to have a spectrometer. You could probably build one without too much trouble, but it would take more than hooking up a camera to a telescope.
"A 100 second exposure pic is equal to 100 one second exposure pics."
Not quite. Averaging multiple exposures lets you remove noise yes. Digital sensors are so sensitive that for reasonably bright objects what you say is true. But, if you want to image dimmer objects, you have to have a longer exposure simply to make sure you actually catch enough photons.
The same thing that happens when you run out of gas going 70 mph. Fortunately cars don't suddenly swerve violently, flip over and explode when the ignition is turned off, even if they're moving at the time.
A Faraday cage isn't perfect protection against EM, just static electric fields. The car is also not grounded, which doesn't help. Plus there are likely to be a good number of holes in the metal big enough to allow damaging frequencies to pass through.
I don't think they'll care. Nobody cares what method you use to put existing media into your brain, so long as you've paid for the privilege. A direct brain interface is just one more media format they can (re)charge you for.
Don't worry, if they're not getting something out of it, they won't do it.
I don't think that picture is accurate anyway. A lot of the data is probably handed to them. They might even be paid to take it in many cases. If you're somebody with something to sell you're going to want to make sure that your locations are accurately portrayed in people's navigation systems.
You don't feel bad about getting the Yellow Pages for free, do you?
If you're careful you can easily get a standalone GPS car navigation system for under $100. That includes the touch screen, map licensing, etc.
The navigation apps are NOW on sale for under $80. They didn't start that way. Prices have dropped rapidly due to competition. That indicates that the $100 price point they started at was unrealistic. $80 doesn't look like such a deal either, since you can get a standalone unit for not much more and Google and Nokia have evidently found that they can give away an equivalent product for free.
If you want to use Photoshop, buy yourself a stylus.
On the other hand, perhaps you've seen artists doing charcoal sketches? You know, where they use that giant stick of charcoal (that obscures where they're working), and then they smudge it with, gasp, their fingers?
The finger isn't great for everything, but it certainly works fine for a lot of tasks.
75 or so wpm isn't a world record or anything, but it's probably quite a bit faster than the average person can type, and very respectable.
His iPhone speed of 40 wpm is pretty fantastic, but the minimal finger movement and not needing to hit the keys hard can make up for the extra fingers you get to use on a full size keyboard. I'm even more impressed by his Treo speed.
GPS apps have been insanely overpriced. There was maybe justification for paying $100 for an actual GPS receiver and dedicated computer plus software, but charing $100 for some map data and a simple app to display it was never going to be a tenable practice. The navigation companies milked their hardware for a few years and got to milk their software for a year or so. Now they're going to have to compete.
"Hardware and software are very different beasts."
Again, you're just asserting things without any justification at all. That's not an argument, that's just saying the same thing over and over again. You're the one who's not thinking. That's two posts with zero content. I have to conclude you don't really have an argument.
There are many arguments in favour of reasonable patents. No, you don't get to demand that every single new category (that you invent) has to be separately justified.
"Incidentally, the reason for the name calling is simple. Interference by the PTO in my daily livelihood when all I'm doing is minding my own business is scummy and I respond to such scum in kind."
Ah, yes. You have an emotional involvement with the issue and can't think about it logically or objectively. That's too bad.
Okay, they'd surely sell a few, no matter what they released. Apple isn't really in the habit of aiming low though. And they do occasionally fail. The Apple TV didn't take off and quickly became a "hobby" that they could try and learn from.
Yes. This is why we have operating systems that support both modes. You can have an app that takes over the whole screen, or maximize a window to fill the whole screen. Or you can use apps that don't do this.
The author seems to be suggesting that all the operating systems of the future won't even allow the possibility of multiple windows or multiple apps sharing the screen. The smart phone interface will expand to take over everything.
I expect the tablet is going to be aimed squarely at the "high end netbook market." It will be a light, portable, fairly cheap (when compared to a macbook) device that can be used for everything you'd want to do on a netbook or ebook reader. Reading, e-mail, web browsing and light productivity, including Keynote/Powerpoint presentations.
I also expect it won't have a cell connection, or will be available without one. It won't be a carrier-subsidized device. Smart phone owners aren't going to want to pay for another contract, the cell carriers don't really want heavy data use devices on their networks anyway, and Apple hasn't had a very good experience with cell carriers.
There might be an iPhone-esque tablet, but there had better be an iPod Touch-esque one, or it's going to be in serious danger of flopping.
I mostly agree with what you've said, but disagree with your interpretation. Our computing tasks aren't moving from desktops to other things, we're doing NEW computing tasks using new devices.
There were a few people who read books on their desktops or laptops, but not many. E-book readers aren't taking any function away from regular computers, they're creating a whole new computing task. Ditto with TV-connected computers.
Kinda defensive, aren't you? Who said anything was wrong with it?
The article itself basically presents the facts, but it does mention that it's interesting that a bunch of companies that otherwise compete with each other are in fact cooperating to develop Linux.
In the wild it's freqently the other way around. If a wild dog/hyena/etc. is too slow or doesn't belong to a big enough pack, it might just get killed by the kitty. I suppose if a lone wolf was dumb enough to go up against a cougar for a kill it would meet the same end.