So I go to Project X's Sourceforge page and there's ZERO information about what the program is or how it works.
Indeed. A lot of projects make the mistake to assume that people who come to their site already know what it's about and tend to give you the latest news about the project and let you have fun trying to deduce what it's all about from these news. I also quite like my Examples page for it shows quite directly what my project can do:-).
Yay woot let's give ourselves some publicity for once! We don't do that often enough. Well except me cause I cunningly put the link to my main project in my signature..
Some thought has just occurred to me while using StreetView just now. With all the panoramic pictures the same stuff under different angles we've got there, why won't someone make something to turn that in 3D? Surely it can't be that hard (besides for the moving vehicles). Basically we already know well enough where all the panoramas were taken, plus they're 360 panoramas and all quite close in space to each other. That wouldn't be too hard to correlate points/features between them and with some trigonometry obtain some 3D stuff. Then you could explore the result in a virtual car. Surely it would look a bit crappy and lifeless, but nonetheless interesting.
I sense a visionary genius in you. "Let's not do that, maybe someone won't appreciate very much". That's the spirit! Of course they shouldn't have done StreetView, because obviously no one likes it, uses it or cares about it.
asking someone for permission should happen BEFORE acting
Yeah, that is just so feasible when what you're doing is taking pictures of EVERY SINGLE BUILDING AND HOUSE IN A LARGE CITY. Well maybe not every single one, but you get my point..
I just love it when people grab any occasion to try to sue as much money as they can from large (and rich) companies, no matter how ridiculous it sounds. A chance these companies also have dozens of lawyers for whenever that happens.
and found the risk to be 'equivalent to having your home surrounded by thousands of nuclear power plants.'
So if one of these nuclear power plants exploded (that's the risk being talked about here?), how large would the crater be, expressed in Libraries of Congress? Also, how likely would such an event be, expressed in chances of successfully dropping a penny from the top of the Empire State Building into someone's pocket?
Surely you can't be serious. In case you are, you're a hell of a gullible mother fucker! I mean, look at the date it was posted or even the last page...
It will make it look like interactive action movie violence, which will be obviously more spectacular and vibrant than it is now (just wait for GTA IV, from the reviews so far it seems it's a leap forward in that very direction). But on the other hand, is it such a big deal? What shocks you the most, a guy stopping a bullet with his bare forehead in Heat or your average episode of Happy Tree Friends?
some of the Muslims are going to donated the money, some of which will knowingly or unknowingly support Islamic terrorists it's a given
60+ years ago we would have put all Muslims in the USA in camps like we did with the Japanese for the reason that some money they earn might go to terrorist groups.
You know, when you turn a seismogram into sound and speed it up, it sounds pretty much like rubbing two rocks against each other. That sort of event usually sounding the way you'd expect them to once you speed it up enough, I'd say this solar Tsunami must sound like the type of explosion you'd expect to hear.
That's a point too : how do you make sure that your signals are synchronous ?
You can use incoherent averaging, which is the same thing as coherent averaging except in the frequency domain, it seems (I just read about it in a book, not too familiar with it). However, it seems that incoherent averaging is less efficient at improving the SNR, so if you have an easily detectable event you care about you could use cross-correlation between the different signals to synchronize them with respect to the event studied. But yeah, you wouldn't average signals coming from all over the world anyways, only local groups I guess.
I almost can't tell if you meant for that to be hilarious?
I did, unfortunately it was almost too subtle, enough for people to feel the need to point out the reason why it's funny. Be a bit too subtle and people will be too busy being confused to laugh.
LAPTOP. SENSORS. WILL. GET. NO SIGNAL. Not a little, not below the noise threshold, not an eensy weensy bit. NONE. NADA. ZIP.
Read my lips : You're an idiot. Sensors return noise for many reasons, either because of their noise level or because they're close to a source of noise, like a hard drive spinning close to them. Besides they're more sensitive than you claim, here's some of what I've found to illustrate my claim:
"Place your laptop on a table and see the seismic waves from tapping your toe on the floor. Lay your laptop on your chest and see your heartbeat. And of course, if there is a real earthquake, SeisMac will be displaying full seismic information while you drop, cover and hold-on." from here.
"It was interesting to see how even the vibration of the internal hard drive shows up as a spike in the spectrum." "the sensors do seem to be pretty darn sensitive. My typing makes the Z sensor go wild..." from here.
Also look at the graphs here. Not only do you see noise before the earthquake (and not 0 readings) but the event is clearly recorded.
But back to our theoretical argument. You claim that you'll get no signal. This is so wrong. As I've shown you'll get a signal, even noisy, and as you would understand if you had as much knowledge as you try to make it sound like, averaging noise signals that contain the same (desirable) signal and a different noise will reduce the noise.
The difference between you and I being that I actually studied DSP and have read literature about it, here's a relevant extract about coherent averaging from Rick Lyons' "Understanding Digital Signal Processing" : "In the coherent averaging process, [...] we collect multiple sets of signal plus noise samples [...]. The noise, however, is different in each sample set and will average toward zero. The point is that coherent averaging reduces the variance of the noise, while preserving the amplitude of signals that are synchronous, or coherent, with the beginning of the sampling interval. With coherent averaging, we can actually improve the signal-to-noise ratio of a noisy signal."
And here is a post that shows that by using that technique, the SNR improves by sqrt(N), N being the number of of sensors. That means that 100 macbooks will be 10 times more sensitive than 1. Which proves my point that it takes a certain amount of them to rival with the sensitivity of a seismometer.
And if you're gonna tell me that they can catch noise but no signal, even buried deep in the noise, how the fuck would that get filtered out in the first place? How could the vibrations of the ground could be left out?
That has been my only point in this whole debate: That no matter how good your amplification and filtration is, you cannot create a signal where there IS NONE.
Noise is cancelled using lowpass or highpass filters around the signal.
Hahahaha. Come back when you get a clue, sucker. Signal processing 101 : Averaging is the most basic way to get rid of noise when you have many copies of the same signal with everytime a different noise. lol, low-pass and high-pass filters? And how the hell do you do if your signal covers the entire spectrum? There's a shitload of ways to reduce noise, but in that case you could trying profiling the noise in the frequency domain, then FFT or better yet STFT the signal and substract that noise profile in the frequency domain.
What do you get? A set of 10 more random numbers.
Duh, look at their distribution you triple imbecile. The more random numbers you use in your 10 series the narrower it will get, which proves my point.
averaging does nothing to white noise
Just fucking take it to comp.dsp and get your arse laughed at.
Install a data logger for your laptop if you have an accelerometer.
Have you actually done it? Because I would except it to give non-zero readings even when you're not jumping up and down (which would be noise).
However, you're right, I don't know this for sure.
Yeah, so that whole thing was based on a baseless assertion. Way to go!
If you think that they are sensitive enough
It's not about sensitivity, and that's the whole point, it's about noise. If you get some noise, that is non-zero readings, then there's no limit to how good a result you can get by averaging an infinity of similar sensors (which obviously is impractical). Noise here serves as dithering, that allows you to catch the signal even if it's buried deep down the noise.
You obviously know very little about signal processing (unlike me, but just check out the link in my signature), and just like a lot of other suckers on Slashdot who try to sound more knowledgeable than they are you make your assumptions, guesses and vague memories from things you remember hearing about sound like knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
you'll see how ridiculous your argument is.
Nope, I don't. But if you care to elaborate..
So I go to Project X's Sourceforge page and there's ZERO information about what the program is or how it works.
Indeed. A lot of projects make the mistake to assume that people who come to their site already know what it's about and tend to give you the latest news about the project and let you have fun trying to deduce what it's all about from these news. I also quite like my Examples page for it shows quite directly what my project can do :-).
I just wanted to talk to somebody
Sounds like an extrovert who got lost.. Ever heard of IM? ;-)
Yay woot let's give ourselves some publicity for once! We don't do that often enough. Well except me cause I cunningly put the link to my main project in my signature..
Some thought has just occurred to me while using StreetView just now. With all the panoramic pictures the same stuff under different angles we've got there, why won't someone make something to turn that in 3D? Surely it can't be that hard (besides for the moving vehicles). Basically we already know well enough where all the panoramas were taken, plus they're 360 panoramas and all quite close in space to each other. That wouldn't be too hard to correlate points/features between them and with some trigonometry obtain some 3D stuff. Then you could explore the result in a virtual car. Surely it would look a bit crappy and lifeless, but nonetheless interesting.
Let us know when it is convenient for us to come over and take your shit.
Take? I don't give my excrements away for free! Your price will be mine though.
Then maybe they shouldn't do that?
I sense a visionary genius in you. "Let's not do that, maybe someone won't appreciate very much". That's the spirit! Of course they shouldn't have done StreetView, because obviously no one likes it, uses it or cares about it.
Oh wait...
asking someone for permission should happen BEFORE acting
Yeah, that is just so feasible when what you're doing is taking pictures of EVERY SINGLE BUILDING AND HOUSE IN A LARGE CITY. Well maybe not every single one, but you get my point..
I just love it when people grab any occasion to try to sue as much money as they can from large (and rich) companies, no matter how ridiculous it sounds. A chance these companies also have dozens of lawyers for whenever that happens.
and found the risk to be 'equivalent to having your home surrounded by thousands of nuclear power plants.'
So if one of these nuclear power plants exploded (that's the risk being talked about here?), how large would the crater be, expressed in Libraries of Congress? Also, how likely would such an event be, expressed in chances of successfully dropping a penny from the top of the Empire State Building into someone's pocket?
Surely you can't be serious. In case you are, you're a hell of a gullible mother fucker! I mean, look at the date it was posted or even the last page...
I want to learn how to master kung-fu in a day, and fly a helicopter in a few seconds. That's real power.
That's nothing. Now if you could learn how to be a ninja in a day, that's what I'd call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
how will this affect video game violence?
It will make it look like interactive action movie violence, which will be obviously more spectacular and vibrant than it is now (just wait for GTA IV, from the reviews so far it seems it's a leap forward in that very direction). But on the other hand, is it such a big deal? What shocks you the most, a guy stopping a bullet with his bare forehead in Heat or your average episode of Happy Tree Friends?
Well supposedly vista sp2 will include support for directx 11 which they claim will support raytracing.
Do you by any chance recall on which precise day of the year you heard these news?
some of the Muslims are going to donated the money, some of which will knowingly or unknowingly support Islamic terrorists it's a given
60+ years ago we would have put all Muslims in the USA in camps like we did with the Japanese for the reason that some money they earn might go to terrorist groups.
You know, when you turn a seismogram into sound and speed it up, it sounds pretty much like rubbing two rocks against each other. That sort of event usually sounding the way you'd expect them to once you speed it up enough, I'd say this solar Tsunami must sound like the type of explosion you'd expect to hear.
Oh shit, how long until the wave reaches us?!?
That's a point too : how do you make sure that your signals are synchronous ?
You can use incoherent averaging, which is the same thing as coherent averaging except in the frequency domain, it seems (I just read about it in a book, not too familiar with it). However, it seems that incoherent averaging is less efficient at improving the SNR, so if you have an easily detectable event you care about you could use cross-correlation between the different signals to synchronize them with respect to the event studied. But yeah, you wouldn't average signals coming from all over the world anyways, only local groups I guess.
I almost can't tell if you meant for that to be hilarious?
I did, unfortunately it was almost too subtle, enough for people to feel the need to point out the reason why it's funny. Be a bit too subtle and people will be too busy being confused to laugh.
If there weren't any photons, how were you able to see anything?
Well at least people who didn't understand the joke will get it now ;-)
Um, Wal Mart has a good selection of ammo...
I don't recall seeing any photons there though..
And where's the ammunition coming from?
Oh. Haha. It's funny because it's unlikely..
LAPTOP. SENSORS. WILL. GET. NO SIGNAL. Not a little, not below the noise threshold, not an eensy weensy bit. NONE. NADA. ZIP.
Read my lips : You're an idiot. Sensors return noise for many reasons, either because of their noise level or because they're close to a source of noise, like a hard drive spinning close to them. Besides they're more sensitive than you claim, here's some of what I've found to illustrate my claim :
"Place your laptop on a table and see the seismic waves from tapping your toe on the floor. Lay your laptop on your chest and see your heartbeat. And of course, if there is a real earthquake, SeisMac will be displaying full seismic information while you drop, cover and hold-on." from here.
"It was interesting to see how even the vibration of the internal hard drive shows up as a spike in the spectrum." "the sensors do seem to be pretty darn sensitive. My typing makes the Z sensor go wild..." from here.
Also look at the graphs here. Not only do you see noise before the earthquake (and not 0 readings) but the event is clearly recorded.
But back to our theoretical argument. You claim that you'll get no signal. This is so wrong. As I've shown you'll get a signal, even noisy, and as you would understand if you had as much knowledge as you try to make it sound like, averaging noise signals that contain the same (desirable) signal and a different noise will reduce the noise.
The difference between you and I being that I actually studied DSP and have read literature about it, here's a relevant extract about coherent averaging from Rick Lyons' "Understanding Digital Signal Processing" : "In the coherent averaging process, [...] we collect multiple sets of signal plus noise samples [...]. The noise, however, is different in each sample set and will average toward zero. The point is that coherent averaging reduces the variance of the noise, while preserving the amplitude of signals that are synchronous, or coherent, with the beginning of the sampling interval. With coherent averaging, we can actually improve the signal-to-noise ratio of a noisy signal."
And here is a post that shows that by using that technique, the SNR improves by sqrt(N), N being the number of of sensors. That means that 100 macbooks will be 10 times more sensitive than 1. Which proves my point that it takes a certain amount of them to rival with the sensitivity of a seismometer.
And if you're gonna tell me that they can catch noise but no signal, even buried deep in the noise, how the fuck would that get filtered out in the first place? How could the vibrations of the ground could be left out?
That has been my only point in this whole debate: That no matter how good your amplification and filtration is, you cannot create a signal where there IS NONE.
Retard.
Noise is cancelled using lowpass or highpass filters around the signal.
Hahahaha. Come back when you get a clue, sucker. Signal processing 101 : Averaging is the most basic way to get rid of noise when you have many copies of the same signal with everytime a different noise. lol, low-pass and high-pass filters? And how the hell do you do if your signal covers the entire spectrum? There's a shitload of ways to reduce noise, but in that case you could trying profiling the noise in the frequency domain, then FFT or better yet STFT the signal and substract that noise profile in the frequency domain.
What do you get? A set of 10 more random numbers.
Duh, look at their distribution you triple imbecile. The more random numbers you use in your 10 series the narrower it will get, which proves my point.
averaging does nothing to white noise
Just fucking take it to comp.dsp and get your arse laughed at.
Install a data logger for your laptop if you have an accelerometer.
Have you actually done it? Because I would except it to give non-zero readings even when you're not jumping up and down (which would be noise).
However, you're right, I don't know this for sure.
Yeah, so that whole thing was based on a baseless assertion. Way to go!
If you think that they are sensitive enough
It's not about sensitivity, and that's the whole point, it's about noise. If you get some noise, that is non-zero readings, then there's no limit to how good a result you can get by averaging an infinity of similar sensors (which obviously is impractical). Noise here serves as dithering, that allows you to catch the signal even if it's buried deep down the noise.
You obviously know very little about signal processing (unlike me, but just check out the link in my signature), and just like a lot of other suckers on Slashdot who try to sound more knowledgeable than they are you make your assumptions, guesses and vague memories from things you remember hearing about sound like knowledge.