I second jet_silver's recommendation that you look at the dissertation, which discusses the tradeoffs and is quite well written. You are correct that to achieving professional quality with this technology requires a huge number of pixels, though the cells themselves do not need to be very large. Such sensors are possible today but until now, there hasn't been much reason to produce them. If the company finds some success in the consumer market, perhaps it can then invest in the additional development needed to satisfy pros. While most of the talk has been about changing the focal point and DOF in post-processing, as a photographer I am most intrigued by the claim that it can correct for lens diffraction as well. That would be a much more than a gimmick, IMO.
OK, let's do some very, very rough calculations here: assume that there are six billion people on the planet and that a third of them own a computer with Internet access. That's two billion. Assume that Mac users are 10% of that group. that's 200 million. In order to account for 10 billion apps, the mean downloads/person would be 50. Really? Since the vast majority of Mac users already had the apps they needed before the store opened, I find this very hard to believe.
Never mind...I forgot that the app store is for iPhones, iPods, and and iWhatevers. Save your flames for more important things.
OK, let's do some very, very rough calculations here: assume that there are six billion people on the planet and that a third of them own a computer with Internet access. That's two billion. Assume that Mac users are 10% of that group. that's 200 million. In order to account for 10 billion apps, the mean downloads/person would be 50. Really? Since the vast majority of Mac users already had the apps they needed before the store opened, I find this very hard to believe.
I like Skype and use it often, but I have never once used it from within FF. They gave me a dollar credit a few weeks ago in apology for the big outage they had, which honestly didn't affect me in the least. I thought that was a lot nicer than the usual corporate stonewalling of "some of our users may be experiencing minor difficulties..." But I don't or trust toolbars from anyone, and I always disable them.
I'm a what is called a serious amateur photographer. I probably take around 25,000 pics a year and keep maybe 3% of them. I always have two copies of everything I value on separate media--at the moment, DVDs and an external hard drive, but I expect that to change in the future as storage technology evolves. In addition, all of my best work is stored as high quality JPGs on an online photo site. I consider this a minimal scheme. If I were a pro, I would have additional off-site copies of everything, but if my house burns down, my pics will be the least of my worries. How much you invest (time and money) should be a function of how important the photos are to you.
Another thing to consider is how you will find photos years from now, especially if you accumulate thousands of them. Besides a solid backup scheme you should consider investing (time and maybe money) in some catalog software that will help you locate photos by keyword, location, date, whatever.
Yes, I remember reading you in the 80s. A new incarnation of Byte cannot be the same. We aren't the same either. The ads in the 80s were a lot more interesting than many feature articles today. So it goes.
Yes, that's right. Photoshop is a terrible choice for casual users, not only because of the UI but because the power and sophistication make it difficult to learn. The UI is actually not a problem at all for experienced, professional users.
It might come as a surprise to many here that Stewart was (and remains) a fine stage actor in the best British tradition. But on/. I suppose you could say he was hoist with his own Picard.
This is hardly a matter of human rights, but it is a significant step forward for many Spaniards who live in rural areas where the only current broadband option is very expensive (and not very reliable) satellite service. Although the article doesn't mention it, it will likely mean that faster service will also be available in those areas. Telefonica's basic DSL service in Madrid these days is 6Mbs.
Utter nonsense. Siebel's view may have some merit when applied to those business problems that have largely been solved--payroll, HR, general ledger, etc. But as technology advances (and business models change), there will be entirely new areas for IT and consequently, IT employment. There may not be much growth in the existing job positions, but those who understand computer systems will have opportunities that we simply can't imagine yet. Stay tuned and stay the course.
Re:Electronic Health Records is very hard
on
IT and Health Care
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I, too, spent many years working as a developer and IT administrator. While there are certainly some technical problems--security, privacy, and especially finding a sufficiently expressive standardized vocabulary--the primary issue in implementing computer systems in hospitals is cultural and behavioral. Doctors are accustomed to a great deal of autonomy, and many do not care for the structure that systems impose. The VA has been more successful than most organizations because they can impose systems by fiat. Doctors are often subject to intense time pressure and will resist anything that slows them down. In the short term, it is much faster to scribble a prescription on a piece of paper than to navigate the widgets of any order entry system. Many don't care about the long-term problems that this creates. While administrators are more likely to be aware of the long-term benefits, there is generally little they can do when doctors threaten that babies will die if doctors have to change their ways.
The premise of the the original article appeals to conspiracy theorists, but I have to say I have never seen any evidence that supports it. The author also fails to provide any. Rather than look to greed, it makes more sense to look at the UI failures of most commercial systems and the inadequate attention given to training and support during implementation.
Yes, the devil is in the details. Other than the insurance requirement, the restrictions do not seem excessively harsh to me. The real question is how they will be implemented. A police officer has more important things to do than to keep track of how long somebody has a tripod set up. This lends itself to arbitrary enforcement, otherwise known as hassling people. Bleh.
Well, not everybody. I would guess that the majority of people attacked by the RIAA were, in fact, violating copyright laws. Still, it would be gratifying to see the RIAA on the losing side of this one.
I'm not sure you would lose "color resolution" at all. The current RGB scheme combines color and luminosity. Under the new scheme, those could be separated, much the way LAB color space works. Potentially, this could give you a greater dynamic range, which would address the biggest weakness of current digital cameras. Of course, the proof will be in the execution. If it yields more noise in the process, then it won't be worth a damn. We'll see.
Slashdot Mirror
Their coolness reduces global warming.
And how will it make the sort of money needed to pay the investors?
Selling sock puppets, maybe?
I second jet_silver's recommendation that you look at the dissertation, which discusses the tradeoffs and is quite well written. You are correct that to achieving professional quality with this technology requires a huge number of pixels, though the cells themselves do not need to be very large. Such sensors are possible today but until now, there hasn't been much reason to produce them. If the company finds some success in the consumer market, perhaps it can then invest in the additional development needed to satisfy pros. While most of the talk has been about changing the focal point and DOF in post-processing, as a photographer I am most intrigued by the claim that it can correct for lens diffraction as well. That would be a much more than a gimmick, IMO.
OK, let's do some very, very rough calculations here: assume that there are six billion people on the planet and that a third of them own a computer with Internet access. That's two billion. Assume that Mac users are 10% of that group. that's 200 million. In order to account for 10 billion apps, the mean downloads/person would be 50. Really? Since the vast majority of Mac users already had the apps they needed before the store opened, I find this very hard to believe.
Never mind...I forgot that the app store is for iPhones, iPods, and and iWhatevers. Save your flames for more important things.
OK, let's do some very, very rough calculations here: assume that there are six billion people on the planet and that a third of them own a computer with Internet access. That's two billion. Assume that Mac users are 10% of that group. that's 200 million. In order to account for 10 billion apps, the mean downloads/person would be 50. Really? Since the vast majority of Mac users already had the apps they needed before the store opened, I find this very hard to believe.
I like Skype and use it often, but I have never once used it from within FF. They gave me a dollar credit a few weeks ago in apology for the big outage they had, which honestly didn't affect me in the least. I thought that was a lot nicer than the usual corporate stonewalling of "some of our users may be experiencing minor difficulties..." But I don't or trust toolbars from anyone, and I always disable them.
I'm a what is called a serious amateur photographer. I probably take around 25,000 pics a year and keep maybe 3% of them. I always have two copies of everything I value on separate media--at the moment, DVDs and an external hard drive, but I expect that to change in the future as storage technology evolves. In addition, all of my best work is stored as high quality JPGs on an online photo site. I consider this a minimal scheme. If I were a pro, I would have additional off-site copies of everything, but if my house burns down, my pics will be the least of my worries. How much you invest (time and money) should be a function of how important the photos are to you. Another thing to consider is how you will find photos years from now, especially if you accumulate thousands of them. Besides a solid backup scheme you should consider investing (time and maybe money) in some catalog software that will help you locate photos by keyword, location, date, whatever.
Yes, I remember reading you in the 80s. A new incarnation of Byte cannot be the same. We aren't the same either. The ads in the 80s were a lot more interesting than many feature articles today. So it goes.
Smarter and smarter vehicles for dumber and dumber wars.
To celebrate, Google will change their logo to one which crashes your machine when you click on it.
Yes, that's right. Photoshop is a terrible choice for casual users, not only because of the UI but because the power and sophistication make it difficult to learn. The UI is actually not a problem at all for experienced, professional users.
It might come as a surprise to many here that Stewart was (and remains) a fine stage actor in the best British tradition. But on /. I suppose you could say he was hoist with his own Picard.
I'm hoping this idea is merely ridiculous, not scary as shit.
This is hardly a matter of human rights, but it is a significant step forward for many Spaniards who live in rural areas where the only current broadband option is very expensive (and not very reliable) satellite service. Although the article doesn't mention it, it will likely mean that faster service will also be available in those areas. Telefonica's basic DSL service in Madrid these days is 6Mbs.
Utter nonsense. Siebel's view may have some merit when applied to those business problems that have largely been solved--payroll, HR, general ledger, etc. But as technology advances (and business models change), there will be entirely new areas for IT and consequently, IT employment. There may not be much growth in the existing job positions, but those who understand computer systems will have opportunities that we simply can't imagine yet. Stay tuned and stay the course.
I, too, spent many years working as a developer and IT administrator. While there are certainly some technical problems--security, privacy, and especially finding a sufficiently expressive standardized vocabulary--the primary issue in implementing computer systems in hospitals is cultural and behavioral. Doctors are accustomed to a great deal of autonomy, and many do not care for the structure that systems impose. The VA has been more successful than most organizations because they can impose systems by fiat. Doctors are often subject to intense time pressure and will resist anything that slows them down. In the short term, it is much faster to scribble a prescription on a piece of paper than to navigate the widgets of any order entry system. Many don't care about the long-term problems that this creates. While administrators are more likely to be aware of the long-term benefits, there is generally little they can do when doctors threaten that babies will die if doctors have to change their ways.
The premise of the the original article appeals to conspiracy theorists, but I have to say I have never seen any evidence that supports it. The author also fails to provide any. Rather than look to greed, it makes more sense to look at the UI failures of most commercial systems and the inadequate attention given to training and support during implementation.
"They'll never actually do anything." Huh? Hitler and Stalin were just posing? What a curious reading of history.
It sounds like a fully licensed version of Win95.
If the concept were sound, it would be well worth the cost even if it came out to two orders of magnitude greater than the projection.
They should demand that everyone have a cerebral implant that would block all unauthorized content. I mean, serious problems demand serious solutions.
Can you say Schadenfreude in English?
Yes, the devil is in the details. Other than the insurance requirement, the restrictions do not seem excessively harsh to me. The real question is how they will be implemented. A police officer has more important things to do than to keep track of how long somebody has a tripod set up. This lends itself to arbitrary enforcement, otherwise known as hassling people. Bleh.
Well, not everybody. I would guess that the majority of people attacked by the RIAA were, in fact, violating copyright laws. Still, it would be gratifying to see the RIAA on the losing side of this one.
I'm not sure you would lose "color resolution" at all. The current RGB scheme combines color and luminosity. Under the new scheme, those could be separated, much the way LAB color space works. Potentially, this could give you a greater dynamic range, which would address the biggest weakness of current digital cameras. Of course, the proof will be in the execution. If it yields more noise in the process, then it won't be worth a damn. We'll see.
There are 8,576,336 users already.