When I get the deja vu feeling, it is usually because I feel as I have heard something (or discussed something with someone) before. If my sighted deja vu is mostly auditory, why is it a surprise that someone who can't see experiences the same feeling?
The actual paper, if you want to read it
on
The Sun Had Sisters
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I'm working on covering this for the Museum of Science, Boston on our podcast. I tracked down a PDF of the actual paper, if anyone is interested.
they will never be as good as the limbs we were born with
Not quite as good, but I just interviewed someone about new research into interfacing neurons with electronics that could lead to Luke Skywalker-like replacement limbs. Harvard researchers have figured out a way to directly read and write to a neuron with digital electronics.
Called Need4Speed, the test will run from Aug. 7 to 18.
All of the stories you link to talk about how our phones "are going to be" tracked by such systems in the future. This is the first Slashdot mention of a system currently in use.
Unless I'm mistaken, the top of a coke can is a separate piece made of an alloy that will stick to a magnet, while the rest is almost 100% aluminum. That's why is says to glue the magnet to the lip of the can -- to make to top stick.
This Wikipedia entry doesn't say exactly what the top is made of, only that it is an alloy.
I am a podcaster who doesn't listen to many podcasts.
Yes, I have a couple of dozen shows in the "Podcasts" section of my iPod, but almost none of the are true podcasts. I listen to NPR, BBC, CBC, and other radio content, time-shifting it using podcasting as the delivery method.
The only true podcasts that I listen to are well-produced, well-thought-out shows that I consider radio quality. Some of these really do not have a place on the radio. Some are really well put together but are purposely not polished enough to be radio-style productions. Others just do not have the wide appeal required for broadcasting. These are the few podcasts that I think justify the attention the medium is getting.
Most podcasts are terrible, but here's a question for you: what fraction of the TV shows out there would you say are worth watching?
At the recent Podcast Academy at Boston University, one of the big messages that I heard over and over was this: You won't be able to quit your day job and podcast full time. What you may be able to do though, is quit your day job and tell others how to podcast.
For better or worse, there are many individuals, organizations, companies, and even governments getting involved in podcasting. Many of them feel that they need consultants to guide them along the way. If you can put a moderately popular show together, the money may come from helping others to do the same.
I have a Verizon phone and set up an "alias" email address like this for my phone. That's all it is. You can always send email to 1005551212@vtext.com (your phone number, of course), but the alias address can be changed. I started to get some spam on my phone through the alias, so I changed it to something else. It took 15 seconds on their website.
That wasn't meant to be an attack on your comment. I was making more of a general comment on digital zoom and how it should not be considered a "feature" on digital cameras. The difference between 23 and 37mm equivalent view is about 125,000 pixels (if I did the math right) on a 5MP camera. Not a big deal, but also not worth letting the camera do for you.
While "10x digital zoom is a ludicrously extreme example," it is unfortunately a reality on some cameras. I feel that digital zoom is a trick played on the public by the camera companies. I am genuinely bothered by it. Therefore, I do have a DSLR with proper lenses to cover the equivalent of 28-480mm. I also have a tiny pocket digicam with the digital zoom permanently turned off.
Digital zoom does not count. Digital zoom is nothing more than cropping the edges off of the picture. This is something that can be done better and more precisely later with just about every image editor in existence.
People don't realize how much resolution you lose to "digital zoom" or cropping. A 10x digital zoom does not result in a picture with 1/10th the information. Because magnification relates to the linear size of an object in the picture while resolution relates to the area, a 10x zoom gives 1/100th of the information found in the original. Suddenly a 5MP camera with a 10x digital zoom doesn't sound so good when you realize that pictures taken at maximum zoom will be 0.5MP images.
I'd love to see a camera like this with the option to take a picture using both imaging systems at the same time. Imagine having a wide-angle "context" view for each picture you took while on vacation. A 117mm telephoto shot with an embedded wide angle view giving almost 5x the viewing angle to give context to the detail shot. This wouldn't be useful all of the time, but it would be interesting to have. You could always take the wide shot at a lower resolution when it wasn't the main view the photographer was interested in.
A second option could take two 5MP photos and interpolate the two images together to provide an extremely high-resolution shot, corrected for any lens defects or flare. Take a 23mm shot with every longer shot and use the area of the 23mm shot that mirrors the longer shot to enhance the image quality. You would get more help at wider angles than at telephoto, but you would gain detail with any shot.
This would be less useful, for the majority of snapshooters who end up having to crop way too much from their photos, 23mm shots could also include a slightly closer view from the other lens to eliminate some of the inevitable quality-degrading "digital zooming."
With two sensors, you are ignoring one of them every time you take a picture. Use both!
The headline is deceiving. This camera does not have an ultrawide zoom. It has a 37-117mm equivalent zoom lens in front of one 5MP sensor with a second, 23mm equivalent prime lens in front of another 5MP sensor. There is no way to take a picture with an equivalent focal length between 23mm and 37mm (a difference of 25 degrees in angle of view).
So, this is really a fairly normal pocket camera with an "ultrawide mode" accomplished by adding an entire second imaging system to the device. That's pretty big news in itself, isn't it? Two 5MP sensors in your pocket!
An 18mm lens on a 10D gives a view equivalent to 28.8mm on a 35mm camera. That is a HUGE difference from 23mm. A 23 mm lens gives about a 76 degree angle of view, while a 28.8mm lens gives 64 degrees
Oh, and 15mm on a 35mm camera is just about the limit for wide angle with a Canon lens. There is an incredibly expensive 14mm lens available, and everything else is a fish-eye. The lens on this camera is "23mm equivalent," not 23mm. It is actually a much shorter focal length on the small sensor in the camera. this is impressive. I can't think of any film point-and-shoots that had a 23mm lens!
While not 20mm ultrawide, this is definitely ultrawide for most users.
"Accuracy per word," or whatever you want to call it, may be greater, but are those words as well-written or necessary in the Wikipedia article?
Also, less than 3 errors/article compared to about 4 errors/article gives us more than 33% more errors/article Wikipedia. Many people (including Nature) are calling this close. Since when is 33% close? "Closer than expected," maybe but not close.
The difference between the equatorial and polar diameters differs by approximately 0.3%. Any slight change in orbital height would not account for any velocity differences large enough to require increased heat shielding.
In any case, the smaller your orbit, the faster you are going, so a polar orbit would produce a slightly higher reentry speed. This would be compounded by the fact that the relative speed of the atmosphere increases as the angle of orbit increases. In a polar orbit, you have to deal with the atmosphere hitting you at 1000 mph sideways on reentry.
Yes, they are fusing particles, but this is not power-producing fusion. To call it fusion will mislead a general audience.
What it is -- which is still very cool -- is a particle accellerator the size of a toaster. High energy accerators fuse atoms, but we don't usually call them fusion reactors.
So, we should be talking about a small particle accelrator that could be used for medical imaging and treatment, sensing, or spacecraft propulsion.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but we do get a hint at it:
According to this AP article, the study entailed "10 years of research on a project that was supposed to take only five years."
There are both passive (no battery) and active (battery-assisted) tags. Want an example of an active RFID? Try EZ-Pass.
When I get the deja vu feeling, it is usually because I feel as I have heard something (or discussed something with someone) before. If my sighted deja vu is mostly auditory, why is it a surprise that someone who can't see experiences the same feeling?
I'm working on covering this for the Museum of Science, Boston on our podcast. I tracked down a PDF of the actual paper, if anyone is interested.
Not quite as good, but I just interviewed someone about new research into interfacing neurons with electronics that could lead to Luke Skywalker-like replacement limbs. Harvard researchers have figured out a way to directly read and write to a neuron with digital electronics.
Called Need4Speed, the test will run from Aug. 7 to 18.
All of the stories you link to talk about how our phones "are going to be" tracked by such systems in the future. This is the first Slashdot mention of a system currently in use.
Good point on the electrolytic effects. I forgot about that. I guess I stand corrected.
Unless I'm mistaken, the top of a coke can is a separate piece made of an alloy that will stick to a magnet, while the rest is almost 100% aluminum. That's why is says to glue the magnet to the lip of the can -- to make to top stick.
This Wikipedia entry doesn't say exactly what the top is made of, only that it is an alloy.
I am a podcaster who doesn't listen to many podcasts.
Yes, I have a couple of dozen shows in the "Podcasts" section of my iPod, but almost none of the are true podcasts. I listen to NPR, BBC, CBC, and other radio content, time-shifting it using podcasting as the delivery method.
The only true podcasts that I listen to are well-produced, well-thought-out shows that I consider radio quality. Some of these really do not have a place on the radio. Some are really well put together but are purposely not polished enough to be radio-style productions. Others just do not have the wide appeal required for broadcasting. These are the few podcasts that I think justify the attention the medium is getting.
Most podcasts are terrible, but here's a question for you: what fraction of the TV shows out there would you say are worth watching?
At the recent Podcast Academy at Boston University, one of the big messages that I heard over and over was this: You won't be able to quit your day job and podcast full time. What you may be able to do though, is quit your day job and tell others how to podcast.
For better or worse, there are many individuals, organizations, companies, and even governments getting involved in podcasting. Many of them feel that they need consultants to guide them along the way. If you can put a moderately popular show together, the money may come from helping others to do the same.
On its descent the engine is expected to reach a top speed of Mach 7.6 or over 9,000km/ hour.
I think crash is a bit of an understatement!
I have a Verizon phone and set up an "alias" email address like this for my phone. That's all it is. You can always send email to 1005551212@vtext.com (your phone number, of course), but the alias address can be changed. I started to get some spam on my phone through the alias, so I changed it to something else. It took 15 seconds on their website.
Years of this? Why not just change the address?
Sorry, but I did do that math wrong. 23 to 37mm should be a loss of about 615,000 pixels, or 12%. More significant, but not extreme.
That wasn't meant to be an attack on your comment. I was making more of a general comment on digital zoom and how it should not be considered a "feature" on digital cameras. The difference between 23 and 37mm equivalent view is about 125,000 pixels (if I did the math right) on a 5MP camera. Not a big deal, but also not worth letting the camera do for you.
While "10x digital zoom is a ludicrously extreme example," it is unfortunately a reality on some cameras. I feel that digital zoom is a trick played on the public by the camera companies. I am genuinely bothered by it. Therefore, I do have a DSLR with proper lenses to cover the equivalent of 28-480mm. I also have a tiny pocket digicam with the digital zoom permanently turned off.
People don't realize how much resolution you lose to "digital zoom" or cropping. A 10x digital zoom does not result in a picture with 1/10th the information. Because magnification relates to the linear size of an object in the picture while resolution relates to the area, a 10x zoom gives 1/100th of the information found in the original. Suddenly a 5MP camera with a 10x digital zoom doesn't sound so good when you realize that pictures taken at maximum zoom will be 0.5MP images.
I'd love to see a camera like this with the option to take a picture using both imaging systems at the same time. Imagine having a wide-angle "context" view for each picture you took while on vacation. A 117mm telephoto shot with an embedded wide angle view giving almost 5x the viewing angle to give context to the detail shot. This wouldn't be useful all of the time, but it would be interesting to have. You could always take the wide shot at a lower resolution when it wasn't the main view the photographer was interested in.
A second option could take two 5MP photos and interpolate the two images together to provide an extremely high-resolution shot, corrected for any lens defects or flare. Take a 23mm shot with every longer shot and use the area of the 23mm shot that mirrors the longer shot to enhance the image quality. You would get more help at wider angles than at telephoto, but you would gain detail with any shot.
This would be less useful, for the majority of snapshooters who end up having to crop way too much from their photos, 23mm shots could also include a slightly closer view from the other lens to eliminate some of the inevitable quality-degrading "digital zooming."
With two sensors, you are ignoring one of them every time you take a picture. Use both!
So, this is really a fairly normal pocket camera with an "ultrawide mode" accomplished by adding an entire second imaging system to the device. That's pretty big news in itself, isn't it? Two 5MP sensors in your pocket!
An 18mm lens on a 10D gives a view equivalent to 28.8mm on a 35mm camera. That is a HUGE difference from 23mm. A 23 mm lens gives about a 76 degree angle of view, while a 28.8mm lens gives 64 degrees
Oh, and 15mm on a 35mm camera is just about the limit for wide angle with a Canon lens. There is an incredibly expensive 14mm lens available, and everything else is a fish-eye. The lens on this camera is "23mm equivalent," not 23mm. It is actually a much shorter focal length on the small sensor in the camera. this is impressive. I can't think of any film point-and-shoots that had a 23mm lens!
While not 20mm ultrawide, this is definitely ultrawide for most users.
"Accuracy per word," or whatever you want to call it, may be greater, but are those words as well-written or necessary in the Wikipedia article?
Also, less than 3 errors/article compared to about 4 errors/article gives us more than 33% more errors/article Wikipedia. Many people (including Nature) are calling this close. Since when is 33% close? "Closer than expected," maybe but not close.
Oxygen is poisonous in high concentrations, hydrogen can asphyxiate you, and "dihydrogen monoxide" can cause both water intoxication and drowning.
Oh, and haven't you ever seen a shuttle launch? It isn't the dihydrogen monoxide that will kill you, but the reaction that creates it...
In any case, the smaller your orbit, the faster you are going, so a polar orbit would produce a slightly higher reentry speed. This would be compounded by the fact that the relative speed of the atmosphere increases as the angle of orbit increases. In a polar orbit, you have to deal with the atmosphere hitting you at 1000 mph sideways on reentry.
Think about that a little and get back to me...
Before someone else points it out:
How did I possibly manage to spell "accelerator" three different ways in the same post?
Yes, they are fusing particles, but this is not power-producing fusion. To call it fusion will mislead a general audience.
What it is -- which is still very cool -- is a particle accellerator the size of a toaster. High energy accerators fuse atoms, but we don't usually call them fusion reactors.
So, we should be talking about a small particle accelrator that could be used for medical imaging and treatment, sensing, or spacecraft propulsion.
So, what does the placement of this trailer debut say about the target audience for Episode III?