Yes, it is better for him. See, when he hears a perfect recording, he not only enjoys the music, but also the recording itself, i.e. more enjoyment than you could perceive. The downside is with bad recordings, but really good music will cancel that out anyway.
Not quite. The software only needs to estimate the delay between speaker(s) and microphone, because successfully removing the original sound will very likely make that component of the signal unintelligible. There's no need to perfectly excise it without leaving noise behind.
There's an alternate solution, though: perform speech recognition on the mix of all playback sources. Any commands recognized there are disabled for the next second or so.
This isn't new. I have a Win95 upgrade CD that requires Win3.1 or equivalent Microsoft product already on the HD to install. It was just as ridiculous back then too.
Many cameras do this automatically as you say, like my FZ30, for instance. It's called a dark frame, and it simply closes the shutter and takes a dark image right after the actual shot, using the same shutter speed, then subtracts it from the original using some algorithm. This will take out hot spots that are mostly consistent over a short period of time, but won't touch any other noise.
Replying to TFA:
surprised (disappointed, since I expect digital perfection) at the variance in adjacent pixels.
Digital perfection does not exist! You (the submitter) are taking images of the real world, where light moves around somewhat randomly in energy packets called photons, not in perfect rays. Noise can not be eliminated, ever. There's also some noise from the electronic components of the camera itself, which you also have to live with, unless you get a better quality camera. Or use some careful noise reduction. You do have the option of creating digital perfection, though. 3ds Max is popular, I gather.:)
If color variance is the problem, however, that's due to the CCD design. The CCD in nearly every camera is a single chip for all three colors (4 in some rare cases), but a single photosite ("pixel") can only detect one color. This means the sites need to be mosaiced in a regular pattern, usually RGBG, which is then decoded into a raster image like JPEG. For your 7.1 Mpix camera, than means about 3.5 Mpix resolution for green golors, and 1.8 Mpix for red and blue each. This can cause colored blotches in supposedly even areas, but this kind of noise is fortunately really easy to remove with any decent noise-removal plugin. Perhaps it's possible to avoid this noise in the conversion from the raw data, though?
Most importantly, inspecting the noise of a camera by oogling at 200% isn't very useful, look at larger areas instead. Most noise disappears when put into its normal scale for viewing.
To answer the last question in TFS, yes, if there are bad pixels, it's not hard to find them and create a mask or an action (in PS) that eliminates them. You can also take a noise print for your camera at different ISOs/shutter speeds (at least in Neat Image), and store them for later use in other photos, so you don't need to analyze the noise over and over again. Again, if you want less noise to begin with, make sure you're using the lowest ISO setting that gives you a usable shutter speed, or get a camera with larger sensor area, that can capture more photons in the same amount of time. Also remember that some noise is good noise. A noiseless picture tends to look a bit unnatural, so don't try to remove all of it.
But walking is by far the most efficient to start with. You can keep going for quite a while without collapsing by the roadside, or feeling like you want to collapse (lack of will).
Right, I realised this too, that having a confirmation code eliminates the problem of stolen login credentials. On the other hand, what if the trojan displays the bank pages you request, but changes the request for confirmation code to the one it needs to complete its own transaction, which is already ready to go in the background. Just like fooling a captcha by using a humans on porn sites, in other words.
They didn't use a confirmation code, however. The system in the Finnish branch requires that you give a confirmation code as a last step to actually complete any transaction, which makes login info useless by itself, and makes trojaning more difficult. I have no idea why the Swedish branch doesn't use it...
Replying to myself, since I found out the difference between the Finnish and Swedish branches:
The Finnish branch says this scam won't work in their system, because they require a separate confirmation code to complete any transaction. The Swedish branch does not, so that's why capturing login info is sufficient to steal the loot.
This is not a simple scam. Judging from my experience with the Finnish branch and the comments below, the Swedish branch also uses a unique id for every customer and a one-time password, printed on a list. The password was captured as it was entered on the real login page, after which the trojan displayed an "error" page, supposedly from the bank, saying that the system is down for maintenance. I don't see any authentication method that could prevent this, especially if the trojan piggybacks on the browser's TCP connection. The only way is to scan for trojans, which can also be unreliable.
Really, how could this be prevented?
Of course, in this case it would've helped not to download and run that "spam-prevention tool", but that's not the only way to spread a trojan.
Well, I watched an interview with a rep for the Finnish branch, and he said this particular attack wouldn't work here because the Finnish branch uses a different auth system: a list of OTPs. They've had this system for much more than 3 years too.. so, what exactly does the Swedish branch use really?
What does 'at the university' mean in this case? While doing homework, or everything you do until you graduate? The latter case would be truly worthy of decorating the devil's throne...
Slashdot Mirror
Cameras like that already exist.
Yes, it is better for him. See, when he hears a perfect recording, he not only enjoys the music, but also the recording itself, i.e. more enjoyment than you could perceive. The downside is with bad recordings, but really good music will cancel that out anyway.
I say: Yaay for power saving!
That's the first time I've seen an insightful mod on that joke... so it isn't a joke, then?
There's an alternate solution, though: perform speech recognition on the mix of all playback sources. Any commands recognized there are disabled for the next second or so.
Yes, Slashdotters unite! We desire Redmond rumours and Google guesstimations, not PS3 prophecies!
Is this in any way related to tubgirl.jpg?
This isn't new. I have a Win95 upgrade CD that requires Win3.1 or equivalent Microsoft product already on the HD to install. It was just as ridiculous back then too.
Doesn't matter, it will still converge on a finite amount of money, about $30300 or so.
The standard Open Source reply: "It's fixed in CVS!" :)
Replying to TFA:
Digital perfection does not exist! You (the submitter) are taking images of the real world, where light moves around somewhat randomly in energy packets called photons, not in perfect rays. Noise can not be eliminated, ever. There's also some noise from the electronic components of the camera itself, which you also have to live with, unless you get a better quality camera. Or use some careful noise reduction. You do have the option of creating digital perfection, though. 3ds Max is popular, I gather.If color variance is the problem, however, that's due to the CCD design. The CCD in nearly every camera is a single chip for all three colors (4 in some rare cases), but a single photosite ("pixel") can only detect one color. This means the sites need to be mosaiced in a regular pattern, usually RGBG, which is then decoded into a raster image like JPEG. For your 7.1 Mpix camera, than means about 3.5 Mpix resolution for green golors, and 1.8 Mpix for red and blue each. This can cause colored blotches in supposedly even areas, but this kind of noise is fortunately really easy to remove with any decent noise-removal plugin. Perhaps it's possible to avoid this noise in the conversion from the raw data, though?
Most importantly, inspecting the noise of a camera by oogling at 200% isn't very useful, look at larger areas instead. Most noise disappears when put into its normal scale for viewing.
To answer the last question in TFS, yes, if there are bad pixels, it's not hard to find them and create a mask or an action (in PS) that eliminates them. You can also take a noise print for your camera at different ISOs/shutter speeds (at least in Neat Image), and store them for later use in other photos, so you don't need to analyze the noise over and over again. Again, if you want less noise to begin with, make sure you're using the lowest ISO setting that gives you a usable shutter speed, or get a camera with larger sensor area, that can capture more photons in the same amount of time. Also remember that some noise is good noise. A noiseless picture tends to look a bit unnatural, so don't try to remove all of it.
Uh, no. AAC and MP3 are standardised but non-free, licensable formats. WMA and RealAudio are examples of closed (proprietary) formats.
But walking is by far the most efficient to start with. You can keep going for quite a while without collapsing by the roadside, or feeling like you want to collapse (lack of will).
How the hell does healthy food get phased out, in this day and age?
A Bulgarian aquaintance of mine said the same thing, lamenting the virtual nonexistence of Real Yoghurt where she is now.
Yeah, and if you add 'has a name that starts with Z' to that, they might even break the 30% mark!
Right, I realised this too, that having a confirmation code eliminates the problem of stolen login credentials. On the other hand, what if the trojan displays the bank pages you request, but changes the request for confirmation code to the one it needs to complete its own transaction, which is already ready to go in the background. Just like fooling a captcha by using a humans on porn sites, in other words.
They didn't use a confirmation code, however. The system in the Finnish branch requires that you give a confirmation code as a last step to actually complete any transaction, which makes login info useless by itself, and makes trojaning more difficult. I have no idea why the Swedish branch doesn't use it...
The Finnish branch says this scam won't work in their system, because they require a separate confirmation code to complete any transaction. The Swedish branch does not, so that's why capturing login info is sufficient to steal the loot.
Really, how could this be prevented?
Of course, in this case it would've helped not to download and run that "spam-prevention tool", but that's not the only way to spread a trojan.
Well, I watched an interview with a rep for the Finnish branch, and he said this particular attack wouldn't work here because the Finnish branch uses a different auth system: a list of OTPs. They've had this system for much more than 3 years too.. so, what exactly does the Swedish branch use really?
In other news, a man was killed by perforation at Los Angeles Intl., when he foolishly fired up a welding torch on the airfield.
What does 'at the university' mean in this case? While doing homework, or everything you do until you graduate? The latter case would be truly worthy of decorating the devil's throne...
Well, both involve stuff flowing down tubes.