This is certainly true to an extent but another thing is that while no OS is 100% secure, the whole security model of UNIX/Linux/OS X (which is derived from UNIX) is generally better than Windows. Now to be honest, it is my understanding Windows 7 is much better (I jumped ship after XP) but classically, Windows being Windows was a problem and not just Windows being a majority, if I am not mistaken.
You can say this as much as you want but maybe you just don't do anything that involves visiting sites beyond your usual scope of Slashdot and the like. The reality is, most users (even those who know not to install things they don't trust) will use the web a lot. If you have ever worked in a help desk before (or tech support) you know that your example is completely unrealistic for the general population. Macs come in as well as PCs but PCs almost always have some sort of infection whereas the Macs are just worse for wear in some sort of physical/outdated sense.
I see a lot of people who say this like they know for a fact that they are correct and it's just sheeple who believe lies who think any differently. But have you ever owned a Mac? I remember when I moved from PC to Mac I did the typical installation of antivirus/firewall/antispyware programs. The fact that many of these were shitty ports from PC versions should have tipped me off but I soon realized these served no purpose on my machine unlike my old XP machine where I wouldn't even think about plugging in an ethernet cable without my security suite all up and running to make sure nothing gets in and nothing gets run and the things that do get taken care of.
This simply does not happen on Mac. I am sorry, but it is true. Yes, someone can make a trojan horse and generate a lot of media hype but that boils to someone tricking people into giving the malicious software a chance to run. There is only one way to handle that and that is by teaching people not to believe everything and be wary of what they download. Then you could have two equally informed users on a Mac and a PC who both avoid trojans but guess what. If the Windows users doesn't also have firewalls, antivirus, spybot, etc and a strong knowledge of how to use them (most users don't and these are loads more complicated than explaining to people not everything you here is true which is analogous to the real world) they are going to end up infected anyway. Not to mention that on a Mac, I didn't end up needing to run 2 bloated background programs to monitor security.
My experience, to use a sound analogy, is that yes, you can derive the sine waves that make up the window of sound you are transforming but yeah, you can't pull individual instruments out of the mix. However, presumably isn't the point to mix light together using different frequencies (colors) and then use an FFT to split the beam apart again like a prism? As an audio analogy, if you record two sine waves, one at 1000Hz and one at 10000Hz, you could run an FFT and break the resulting mix back into the original sine waves. You aren't trying to break an orchestra into multiple instruments or anything.
I am somewhat new to Fourier transforms but have been recently working with creating FFTs for audio. My understanding is this: at least in the audio field, you can think of a Fourier transform as pretty much a list of sine waves (frequency, phase and amplitude) that can be added together to recreate a particular window of sound. All sound is made up of it's constiuent sine waves and this is the basis for a lot of digital signal processing and other audio/sound crap we know today.
Anyway, here is the thing: there are constant tradeoffs based on window size and sample rate as to which frequencies you find in the transform. I assume this can be all translated over for light but please, someone tell me if I am wrong about my understanding of this.
Let us say you have audio sampled at 44100Hz. This means that you have 44100 samples per second of audio or 44.1 samples per millisecond (on average.. no such thing as.1 samples). As an aside, this means the highest frequency you can record is half of that or 22050Hz. This makes sense because if you are sampling at 44100Hz, you are literally recording points on a wave at equal intervals 44100 times each second. Since a frequency is really just frequency of a wave, you cannot sample audio at a low sample rate and expect to maintain integrity of high frequencies that may have oscillated many times in between each sample being taken. The rule is half the sample rate is the highest frequency maintained.
When you do an actual Fourier transform, you do not run it on an entire audio file when doing spectral analysis. Audio is samples (y) spanning over time (x). Spectral analysis is relevant for windows of sound (think a graphic equalizer that displays frequencies on a stereo, it moves with the music over time). Most FFT algorithms are happy with a power of 2 number of samples being used so lets say we decided to take the transform of every 4096 samples (and lets just assume mono for the sake of simplicity and because I dont think there is a "stereo" in light if you are thinking in that analogy). Taking the FFT every 4096 samples with a sample rate of 44100Hz, we will have a result that consists of a list of sine wave information (amplitude, phase and frequency) for every sine wave that is a multiple of 10.766601563Hz (44100/4096). This means we cannot get 5Hz or 15.766601563Hz. We can get 10.766601563Hz, 21.533203126Hz, etc all the way up to 10.766601563*(4096/2) which, lo and behold, is 22050Hz (44100Hz / 2). You actually can get 10.766601563*4096 or up to 44100Hz but with real, non complex audio data, this is actually a mirror of the result (I think) and discarded; you only need the first half.
But as you can see, your sample rate and window size limit your frequency intervals that you can successfully determine. If we had a smaller sample interval, say 2048, intervals on 21.533203125Hz could only be captured giving us a less accurate transform but more windows in which to find transforms over time (which means that over the period of one 3 minute song you would find the transform ((3*60)*44100)/2048 = 3875.9765625 times as opposed to ((3*60)*44100)/4096 = 1937.9882813 times but with less accurate results). If you had a larger sample interval, 8192, you would have frequency intervals at 5.3833007813Hz but you would only find the transform ((3*60)*44100)/8192 = 968.99414063 times. Ultimately it is a tradeoff; you can change your sample interval to pick up extremely miniscule frequency intervals but you may be sampling the whole song as one entity and this misses the point. Since I assume with fiber optic transfers the "song" (light pulses) are much shorter than 3 minutes, you kind of hit an upper limit at sample interval anyway and you have to work within that.
But to make a long story short, with FFTs you cannot find an infinite number of frequencies, as far as I know. Please correct me if I am wrong about this because although this hopefully gets a lot of things right and doesnt lead people astray or confuse anyone, I might just not know of something more advanced since I am also still somewhat of a noob at this
It is completely undebatable that OS X has much less "in the wild" malware. Yes, OS X isn't unhackable or whatever just because, but it lacks the market for serious malware writers. Also, it is built up from UNIX so it's entire system is more secure than Windows classically was, given an intelligent user.
Your argument in defense of eBay works for Facebook as well though. Another auction site can't gain traction because eBay has a user base and is well known? Well same with Facebook. Users won't start suddenly using iAuctionSite just like they won't start suddenly using Face-whatever. For another company to break into the market, they will have to convince users to switch and users won't switch unless their personal threshold of other users who have already switched is met. What is an auction site with no auctions and buyers? And what is a social networking site with no people? It can be done, but it is much harder than just stealing people away from a brand.
Facebook knows that a million social networking sites exist for specific topics. They created an API so that these sites can piggyback off of Facebook rather than compete. A small company that doesn't want to compete with Facebook wins because they are more likely to get registered users. Larger sites are sort of forced into integrating with Facebook because it is expected of them. Ones that aren't in direct competition like it too for marketing. A site in direct competition with Facebook can add it to the list of problems they are already facing by attempting to exist.
Facebook just rolled out commenting inline with a blog or website. Now, comments are going to start being Facebook centric more and more, even if you aren't on Facebook. They use meta tags now that allow someone to have their webpage recognized as a Facebook searchable entity (Open Graph protocol). Facebook's hooks are deep because they have a userbase and are embedded throughout the web. Logins rely on them, social media relies on them, commenting systems are starting to rely on them.
Myspace was unlucky because they found themselves as a big player in the start of an important game. Unfortunately, coming into it completely new left them with something unsustainable: an immature implementation of social networking that only went as far as the website itself.
Myspace is like Altavista, Excite, AskJeeves and/or Yahoo. They all were big names in the emerging search engine market and everyone tech-saavy or with a computer in the 90s heard of them. They had great ideas and really opened up an entire world that is still important. However Google came along and did everything right. They all (or most) still exist in some form I believe but it's like Myspace is now. These were huge companies at one point. They aren't going to collapse in on themselves the same way as smaller companies, but they aren't relevant. Google and Facebook meanwhile aren't showing signs of stopping and a collapse would affect things much much more than just a website going down, at this point, due to the massive amount of integration.
I don't think he's trolling bro:) I just think you don't like what he says but have such a limited world view that you can't deal with it unless you excuse it as a method of infuriating you and not just a dissenting opinion. PS: It IS neckbeardy to act like you are more evolved than other people
How do you feel that, at least in America, almost everyone who has an MP3 player has some sort of iPod? Should this be purposefully avoided so that if a character is listening to music, it becomes a character trait that they chose NOT to get an iPod, thus potentially corrupting the character? If having an iPod is the default choice that just means the person has a common MP3 player and adds nothing to the character because it mimics real life. Giving someone an iRiver or Zune would cause them to stand out as NOT having an iPod and the implications that go along with it as opposed to having an expected MP3 player because the MP3 player isn't supposed to be stealing attention.
Could it be this is why so many movies have iPods? Cause so many REAL PEOPLE have iPods?
There's a difference between speculation from a respectful standpoint and tabloids plastering bullshit everywhere to make a point. There is also a disturbing number of internet denizens who honestly think it is funny to make fun of someone dying or try and trivialize it because they don't like iPods or think that it's edgy or something.
Um "A doppelgänger (pronounced [dplg] ( listen)) is a tangible double of a living person in fiction, folklore, and popular culture that typically represents evil. In the vernacular, the word doppelgänger has come to refer (as in German "doppelt(e)") to any double or look-alike of a person." from your link right there it clearly is being used in the "evil twin" sense
No one outside of high school is trying to rack up friends on Facebook like it's a score. Facebook friends are really just contacts and most social people do indeed develop 1000s of contacts. Is it necessary to keep track of all of them? Probably not. But with Facebook, there is no cost associated with adding someone. Now granted you could argue that the more people you add, the greater risk you run of losing your privacy but many people know how to use Facebook in a manner responsible enough that this is not a real problem. Ideally, adding someone is a costless task that marginally will increase your network of contacts. Contacts are important for all aspects of life, just like networking.
If you think of Facebook as a networked representation of an address book and stop getting hung up on the cutesy names they use for their functionality (like referring to everyone as "friends") you would get it.
Just for the record this really isn't true. A lot of G/PG movies have had brief nudity and they certainly don't allow massive amounts of violence. Violence encountered in many of these films is on par with classic fairy tale violence, which while subjectively "violent" existed in childhood folklore long before movies.
If you are talking about movies in which the actress forgets to take her bra off during sex (PG13) and movies which have sex/nude scenes that push it to the limit (R and up), then yes, I'm sure that PG and G will probably not want them without good reason, but the youngest targeted audience is still too young to fully understand sex and although it will be a decision left to the parents, it is best to assume that many 10 year olds are not mature enough to see a motion picture's interpretation of the act of sex, hence the rating that can be ignored by parents who learn the details and decide what to do based on their knowledge of their child's maturity. Romeo and Juliet 1968 version has Juliet's breasts exposed in bed in a morning after scene (the actress was under 18 at the time too) and the film was rated G but later PG, just to give an example, so even tits in a morning after sex scene can still score under PG13 given the subject and material.
This reminds of a few days ago I saw on Sourceforge that stupid DDOS script kiddy program made for and by channers and half the comments were about 0wnz1ng people and the other half were people saying "it has a virus!" because mommys computer's Norton install started to freak out when it checked the signature of a known hacker utility
Slashdot Mirror
Either way maybe newer versions of Windows are better but certainly with XP, web surfing without any protection was certainly not recommendable.
This is certainly true to an extent but another thing is that while no OS is 100% secure, the whole security model of UNIX/Linux/OS X (which is derived from UNIX) is generally better than Windows. Now to be honest, it is my understanding Windows 7 is much better (I jumped ship after XP) but classically, Windows being Windows was a problem and not just Windows being a majority, if I am not mistaken.
You can say this as much as you want but maybe you just don't do anything that involves visiting sites beyond your usual scope of Slashdot and the like. The reality is, most users (even those who know not to install things they don't trust) will use the web a lot. If you have ever worked in a help desk before (or tech support) you know that your example is completely unrealistic for the general population. Macs come in as well as PCs but PCs almost always have some sort of infection whereas the Macs are just worse for wear in some sort of physical/outdated sense.
I see a lot of people who say this like they know for a fact that they are correct and it's just sheeple who believe lies who think any differently. But have you ever owned a Mac? I remember when I moved from PC to Mac I did the typical installation of antivirus/firewall/antispyware programs. The fact that many of these were shitty ports from PC versions should have tipped me off but I soon realized these served no purpose on my machine unlike my old XP machine where I wouldn't even think about plugging in an ethernet cable without my security suite all up and running to make sure nothing gets in and nothing gets run and the things that do get taken care of.
This simply does not happen on Mac. I am sorry, but it is true. Yes, someone can make a trojan horse and generate a lot of media hype but that boils to someone tricking people into giving the malicious software a chance to run. There is only one way to handle that and that is by teaching people not to believe everything and be wary of what they download. Then you could have two equally informed users on a Mac and a PC who both avoid trojans but guess what. If the Windows users doesn't also have firewalls, antivirus, spybot, etc and a strong knowledge of how to use them (most users don't and these are loads more complicated than explaining to people not everything you here is true which is analogous to the real world) they are going to end up infected anyway. Not to mention that on a Mac, I didn't end up needing to run 2 bloated background programs to monitor security.
The geeks shall internet herp a derp
My experience, to use a sound analogy, is that yes, you can derive the sine waves that make up the window of sound you are transforming but yeah, you can't pull individual instruments out of the mix. However, presumably isn't the point to mix light together using different frequencies (colors) and then use an FFT to split the beam apart again like a prism? As an audio analogy, if you record two sine waves, one at 1000Hz and one at 10000Hz, you could run an FFT and break the resulting mix back into the original sine waves. You aren't trying to break an orchestra into multiple instruments or anything.
I am somewhat new to Fourier transforms but have been recently working with creating FFTs for audio. My understanding is this: at least in the audio field, you can think of a Fourier transform as pretty much a list of sine waves (frequency, phase and amplitude) that can be added together to recreate a particular window of sound. All sound is made up of it's constiuent sine waves and this is the basis for a lot of digital signal processing and other audio/sound crap we know today.
Anyway, here is the thing: there are constant tradeoffs based on window size and sample rate as to which frequencies you find in the transform. I assume this can be all translated over for light but please, someone tell me if I am wrong about my understanding of this.
Let us say you have audio sampled at 44100Hz. This means that you have 44100 samples per second of audio or 44.1 samples per millisecond (on average.. no such thing as .1 samples). As an aside, this means the highest frequency you can record is half of that or 22050Hz. This makes sense because if you are sampling at 44100Hz, you are literally recording points on a wave at equal intervals 44100 times each second. Since a frequency is really just frequency of a wave, you cannot sample audio at a low sample rate and expect to maintain integrity of high frequencies that may have oscillated many times in between each sample being taken. The rule is half the sample rate is the highest frequency maintained.
When you do an actual Fourier transform, you do not run it on an entire audio file when doing spectral analysis. Audio is samples (y) spanning over time (x). Spectral analysis is relevant for windows of sound (think a graphic equalizer that displays frequencies on a stereo, it moves with the music over time). Most FFT algorithms are happy with a power of 2 number of samples being used so lets say we decided to take the transform of every 4096 samples (and lets just assume mono for the sake of simplicity and because I dont think there is a "stereo" in light if you are thinking in that analogy). Taking the FFT every 4096 samples with a sample rate of 44100Hz, we will have a result that consists of a list of sine wave information (amplitude, phase and frequency) for every sine wave that is a multiple of 10.766601563Hz (44100/4096). This means we cannot get 5Hz or 15.766601563Hz. We can get 10.766601563Hz, 21.533203126Hz, etc all the way up to 10.766601563*(4096/2) which, lo and behold, is 22050Hz (44100Hz / 2). You actually can get 10.766601563*4096 or up to 44100Hz but with real, non complex audio data, this is actually a mirror of the result (I think) and discarded; you only need the first half.
But as you can see, your sample rate and window size limit your frequency intervals that you can successfully determine. If we had a smaller sample interval, say 2048, intervals on 21.533203125Hz could only be captured giving us a less accurate transform but more windows in which to find transforms over time (which means that over the period of one 3 minute song you would find the transform ((3*60)*44100)/2048 = 3875.9765625 times as opposed to ((3*60)*44100)/4096 = 1937.9882813 times but with less accurate results). If you had a larger sample interval, 8192, you would have frequency intervals at 5.3833007813Hz but you would only find the transform ((3*60)*44100)/8192 = 968.99414063 times. Ultimately it is a tradeoff; you can change your sample interval to pick up extremely miniscule frequency intervals but you may be sampling the whole song as one entity and this misses the point. Since I assume with fiber optic transfers the "song" (light pulses) are much shorter than 3 minutes, you kind of hit an upper limit at sample interval anyway and you have to work within that.
But to make a long story short, with FFTs you cannot find an infinite number of frequencies, as far as I know. Please correct me if I am wrong about this because although this hopefully gets a lot of things right and doesnt lead people astray or confuse anyone, I might just not know of something more advanced since I am also still somewhat of a noob at this
Osama had a body guard who was ordered to shoot him if he ever were to be captured. Hope that helps :)
It is completely undebatable that OS X has much less "in the wild" malware. Yes, OS X isn't unhackable or whatever just because, but it lacks the market for serious malware writers. Also, it is built up from UNIX so it's entire system is more secure than Windows classically was, given an intelligent user.
Your argument in defense of eBay works for Facebook as well though. Another auction site can't gain traction because eBay has a user base and is well known? Well same with Facebook. Users won't start suddenly using iAuctionSite just like they won't start suddenly using Face-whatever. For another company to break into the market, they will have to convince users to switch and users won't switch unless their personal threshold of other users who have already switched is met. What is an auction site with no auctions and buyers? And what is a social networking site with no people? It can be done, but it is much harder than just stealing people away from a brand.
Facebook knows that a million social networking sites exist for specific topics. They created an API so that these sites can piggyback off of Facebook rather than compete. A small company that doesn't want to compete with Facebook wins because they are more likely to get registered users. Larger sites are sort of forced into integrating with Facebook because it is expected of them. Ones that aren't in direct competition like it too for marketing. A site in direct competition with Facebook can add it to the list of problems they are already facing by attempting to exist.
Facebook just rolled out commenting inline with a blog or website. Now, comments are going to start being Facebook centric more and more, even if you aren't on Facebook. They use meta tags now that allow someone to have their webpage recognized as a Facebook searchable entity (Open Graph protocol). Facebook's hooks are deep because they have a userbase and are embedded throughout the web. Logins rely on them, social media relies on them, commenting systems are starting to rely on them.
Myspace was unlucky because they found themselves as a big player in the start of an important game. Unfortunately, coming into it completely new left them with something unsustainable: an immature implementation of social networking that only went as far as the website itself.
Myspace is like Altavista, Excite, AskJeeves and/or Yahoo. They all were big names in the emerging search engine market and everyone tech-saavy or with a computer in the 90s heard of them. They had great ideas and really opened up an entire world that is still important. However Google came along and did everything right. They all (or most) still exist in some form I believe but it's like Myspace is now. These were huge companies at one point. They aren't going to collapse in on themselves the same way as smaller companies, but they aren't relevant. Google and Facebook meanwhile aren't showing signs of stopping and a collapse would affect things much much more than just a website going down, at this point, due to the massive amount of integration.
Galaxy Quest? Is that another Samsung device?
I suppose this means another geek will have to hand in his nerd card. When will it end?
But then why is Apple not just in movies because it mimics real life for a lot of people to have iPods and Apple computers?
I don't think he's trolling bro :) I just think you don't like what he says but have such a limited world view that you can't deal with it unless you excuse it as a method of infuriating you and not just a dissenting opinion. PS: It IS neckbeardy to act like you are more evolved than other people
How do you feel that, at least in America, almost everyone who has an MP3 player has some sort of iPod? Should this be purposefully avoided so that if a character is listening to music, it becomes a character trait that they chose NOT to get an iPod, thus potentially corrupting the character? If having an iPod is the default choice that just means the person has a common MP3 player and adds nothing to the character because it mimics real life. Giving someone an iRiver or Zune would cause them to stand out as NOT having an iPod and the implications that go along with it as opposed to having an expected MP3 player because the MP3 player isn't supposed to be stealing attention.
Could it be this is why so many movies have iPods? Cause so many REAL PEOPLE have iPods?
There's a difference between speculation from a respectful standpoint and tabloids plastering bullshit everywhere to make a point. There is also a disturbing number of internet denizens who honestly think it is funny to make fun of someone dying or try and trivialize it because they don't like iPods or think that it's edgy or something.
Um "A doppelgänger (pronounced [dplg] ( listen)) is a tangible double of a living person in fiction, folklore, and popular culture that typically represents evil. In the vernacular, the word doppelgänger has come to refer (as in German "doppelt(e)") to any double or look-alike of a person." from your link right there it clearly is being used in the "evil twin" sense
I think they were going for the evil twin angle which makes some sense (a doppelganger can be a reference to an evil twin)
Actually, I'm not sure you can sue the government
Your hot pockets and supermarket sushi are getting cold honey!
Your mom wanted me to relay that message to you
No one outside of high school is trying to rack up friends on Facebook like it's a score. Facebook friends are really just contacts and most social people do indeed develop 1000s of contacts. Is it necessary to keep track of all of them? Probably not. But with Facebook, there is no cost associated with adding someone. Now granted you could argue that the more people you add, the greater risk you run of losing your privacy but many people know how to use Facebook in a manner responsible enough that this is not a real problem. Ideally, adding someone is a costless task that marginally will increase your network of contacts. Contacts are important for all aspects of life, just like networking.
If you think of Facebook as a networked representation of an address book and stop getting hung up on the cutesy names they use for their functionality (like referring to everyone as "friends") you would get it.
You just don't get it. Everything in glorious Nippon is perfect! One day, I will travel there and they will embrace me for my love of their cartoons.
Baka gaijin.
Just for the record this really isn't true. A lot of G/PG movies have had brief nudity and they certainly don't allow massive amounts of violence. Violence encountered in many of these films is on par with classic fairy tale violence, which while subjectively "violent" existed in childhood folklore long before movies.
If you are talking about movies in which the actress forgets to take her bra off during sex (PG13) and movies which have sex/nude scenes that push it to the limit (R and up), then yes, I'm sure that PG and G will probably not want them without good reason, but the youngest targeted audience is still too young to fully understand sex and although it will be a decision left to the parents, it is best to assume that many 10 year olds are not mature enough to see a motion picture's interpretation of the act of sex, hence the rating that can be ignored by parents who learn the details and decide what to do based on their knowledge of their child's maturity. Romeo and Juliet 1968 version has Juliet's breasts exposed in bed in a morning after scene (the actress was under 18 at the time too) and the film was rated G but later PG, just to give an example, so even tits in a morning after sex scene can still score under PG13 given the subject and material.
This reminds of a few days ago I saw on Sourceforge that stupid DDOS script kiddy program made for and by channers and half the comments were about 0wnz1ng people and the other half were people saying "it has a virus!" because mommys computer's Norton install started to freak out when it checked the signature of a known hacker utility
It's about 3 football fields of uninhabitability