Part of the reason for the slow failure of the project is the suicide of one of the co-founders, Ilya. A death has a lasting effect on any project, particularly a small one by people new to the whole thing.
At that time Jordan kept a bunch of journals of the development process, they're all online. He even has video of the motion captures he did of his brother, these were used to animate the Prince and it's really uncanny to see how much of that came through in the game. Warning, if you click the link be prepared to waste a LOT of time reading, it's addictive. http://jordanmechner.com/old-journals/1985/10/october-20-1985/
Well unfortunately the Broadcom SoC used in this is only available to official Broadcom partners. So no, the typical person who wants to do this CAN'T acquire the parts.
Your post contains the sort of interesting truths and half-truths from which conspiracy theories grow. I'll try to add to the true parts while keeping things interesting. The US does currently have several nuclear powered space vehicles, all of them deep space missions and all of the powered by RTGs. (Voyager I/II, Poineer I/II, Cassini, New Horizon, etc)
RTGs are different from reactors in that they are passive devices relying on spontaneous isotopic decay and therefore have a fairly constant (but decreasing) power output. Reactors meanwhile have a feedback loop controlling the energy and number of neutrons available to initiate fission and so have variable power output.
The reasons RTGs are used for deep space vehicles are that they're economical and simple. Because of the pesky inverse square law for illumination intensity solar panels start becoming more expensive than RTGs somewhere around the asteroid belt. Relative to fast reactors like SNAP-10 and the Russian TOPAZ RTGs are child's play and dead safe. RTGs are also much less harmful in the case of a launch accident since the plutonium oxide fuel is an alpha emitter and is encased in metal anyway.
The US has only launched one satellites a nuclear reactor, SNAP-10A which was expensive and only lasted 43 days. Since it was unreliable in addition to being horrendously expensive the US stopped pursuing reactors in space since since other technologies were better fits. Fortunately for us the Russians probably thought we turned it into a black program and started furiously testing nuclear reactors on satellites. Consequently the Russians have the most experience with reactors in space since they have launched over 30. If we ever need a space craft with over 100KW of power where reactors become cost effective I'm sure we'll be looking at their designs.
All right, I know I shouldn't be replying to flamebait but here goes.
It is in fact possible to at least partially reconstruct blurry images as long as you have some idea about what kind of distortion or motion is causing your problems. In some cases you can get useable information without even knowing exactly what your problem was! Don't take my word for it, look up "blind deconvolution" in your favorite image processing textbook or just use google.
If you're an IEEE member there is an interesting tutorial entitled "Image Deblurring: I Can See Clearly Now" by James Nagy and Dianne O'Leary. In addition to this a real world applications in motion deblurring can be seen here http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/CAVE/research/demos/ne w/motiondeblur.html/
The problem may not be identical to NASA's problem but the mathematical deconvolution techniques are the same.
I realize you just want some attention but a small sense of disbelief is in order since many new developments in the sciences are pretty indistinguishable from magic at first glance.
And before you know it old Koreans will be demanding bigger drives on these things.
All kidding aside though the little toy sure looks pretty from the pics. I just wonder how good the user interface will be? Guess I'll have to get myself a late Christmas present.
>> They can make all these grand claims and the like, but the simple truth is that what they're claiming is not possible with existing CD standards.
Acyually I would go step further and say that this isn't possible with ANY adio media EVER. The simple fact is that whatever your medium, and no matter how much copy protection you like to add, eventually the data is sent to a speaker. By the nature of what you're trying to accomplish (play some sounds) all your fancy DRM/copy protection MUST be discardded before it it's converted into vibrating air molecules, so even with "perfect" DRM on audio media you just move the pont at which the data is recaptured.
I wonder if anyone has explained this to the PHB's at the media companies?
Since SCO's market capatilization is only on the order of $250M this is a VERY sizeable addition to their coffers. On the bright side, this might lead them to a false sense of confidence about their position. In essence the perfect setup for humiliating public exposure of the falsity of thir claims
They must have all gotten fed up with trying to get Windows Me to work, or even worse, tried to get internet access using their new bongo drum modem.(See recent story) I mean, what other possible reason could there be to destroy your computer?
The mere thought of it sends shivers down my spine...
Slashdot Mirror
Check out David Jones' EEVblog, particularly episode 168. http://www.eevblog.com/
Part of the reason for the slow failure of the project is the suicide of one of the co-founders, Ilya. A death has a lasting effect on any project, particularly a small one by people new to the whole thing.
Apparently I don't know what "elide" means, I meant to say "discover the source".
Take a look at the website of the researcher who did the legwork here. He even gives a detailed description of the advanced tools he used (cut and sort :-P) to elide the source.
http://intrepidusgroup.com/insight/2012/09/tracking-udid-src/
At that time Jordan kept a bunch of journals of the development process, they're all online. He even has video of the motion captures he did of his brother, these were used to animate the Prince and it's really uncanny to see how much of that came through in the game. Warning, if you click the link be prepared to waste a LOT of time reading, it's addictive. http://jordanmechner.com/old-journals/1985/10/october-20-1985/
Well unfortunately the Broadcom SoC used in this is only available to official Broadcom partners. So no, the typical person who wants to do this CAN'T acquire the parts.
Your post contains the sort of interesting truths and half-truths from which conspiracy theories grow. I'll try to add to the true parts while keeping things interesting. The US does currently have several nuclear powered space vehicles, all of them deep space missions and all of the powered by RTGs. (Voyager I/II, Poineer I/II, Cassini, New Horizon, etc) RTGs are different from reactors in that they are passive devices relying on spontaneous isotopic decay and therefore have a fairly constant (but decreasing) power output. Reactors meanwhile have a feedback loop controlling the energy and number of neutrons available to initiate fission and so have variable power output. The reasons RTGs are used for deep space vehicles are that they're economical and simple. Because of the pesky inverse square law for illumination intensity solar panels start becoming more expensive than RTGs somewhere around the asteroid belt. Relative to fast reactors like SNAP-10 and the Russian TOPAZ RTGs are child's play and dead safe. RTGs are also much less harmful in the case of a launch accident since the plutonium oxide fuel is an alpha emitter and is encased in metal anyway. The US has only launched one satellites a nuclear reactor, SNAP-10A which was expensive and only lasted 43 days. Since it was unreliable in addition to being horrendously expensive the US stopped pursuing reactors in space since since other technologies were better fits. Fortunately for us the Russians probably thought we turned it into a black program and started furiously testing nuclear reactors on satellites. Consequently the Russians have the most experience with reactors in space since they have launched over 30. If we ever need a space craft with over 100KW of power where reactors become cost effective I'm sure we'll be looking at their designs.
Would you believe that I was too lazy to find a more appropriate thread?
Oops I fell for it again.
All right, I know I shouldn't be replying to flamebait but here goes.
e w/motiondeblur.html/
It is in fact possible to at least partially reconstruct blurry images as long as you have some idea about what kind of distortion or motion is causing your problems. In some cases you can get useable information without even knowing exactly what your problem was! Don't take my word for it, look up "blind deconvolution" in your favorite image processing textbook or just use google.
If you're an IEEE member there is an interesting tutorial entitled "Image Deblurring: I Can See Clearly Now" by James Nagy and Dianne O'Leary. In addition to this a real world applications in motion deblurring can be seen here http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/CAVE/research/demos/n
The problem may not be identical to NASA's problem but the mathematical deconvolution techniques are the same.
I realize you just want some attention but a small sense of disbelief is in order since many new developments in the sciences are pretty indistinguishable from magic at first glance.
And before you know it old Koreans will be demanding bigger drives on these things. All kidding aside though the little toy sure looks pretty from the pics. I just wonder how good the user interface will be? Guess I'll have to get myself a late Christmas present.
>> They can make all these grand claims and the like, but the simple truth is that what they're claiming is not possible with existing CD standards.
Acyually I would go step further and say that this isn't possible with ANY adio media EVER. The simple fact is that whatever your medium, and no matter how much copy protection you like to add, eventually the data is sent to a speaker. By the nature of what you're trying to accomplish (play some sounds) all your fancy DRM/copy protection MUST be discardded before it it's converted into vibrating air molecules, so even with "perfect" DRM on audio media you just move the pont at which the data is recaptured.
I wonder if anyone has explained this to the PHB's at the media companies?
Since SCO's market capatilization is only on the order of $250M this is a VERY sizeable addition to their coffers. On the bright side, this might lead them to a false sense of confidence about their position. In essence the perfect setup for humiliating public exposure of the falsity of thir claims
They must have all gotten fed up with trying to get Windows Me to work, or even worse, tried to get internet access using their new bongo drum modem.(See recent story) I mean, what other possible reason could there be to destroy your computer? The mere thought of it sends shivers down my spine...