Your post is all well and good but you forgot to include an example of a software ecosystem that you consider to be more stable.
397 posts • joined 23 Sep 2013
That upgrade from Java 8 to 11 you've been putting off? UK fintech types at Revolut 'quite happy' after a year in production
Avast's AntiTrack promised to protect your privacy. Instead, it opened you to miscreant-in-the-middle snooping
Maybe they were a top player 15 years ago but Microsoft Security Essentials has been around for 11 years now, and all the sensible analysts saw the writing on the wall and switched around 10 years ago.
Now Microsoft call it something else, but the point is that their AV was designed from the ground up not to subvert the Windows API while AVG was designed from the ground up to subvert the Windows API. 15 years ago, that was the only option, but it was never a good option.
If you don't reevaluate your security measures periodically, you can't know that they are still any good.
It's Friday, the weekend has landed... and Microsoft warns of an Internet Explorer zero day exploited in the wild
Re: patent wars
when I see these poor souls on Dragon's den who have remortgaged to pay patent lawyers, they are basically on the show begging for some money in exchange for some patent, and how often does it work?
When you see someone sleeping on the street, you don't think they must have been on Dragon's Den, but when you see someone sleeping in a car with a suit hanging in the back.
Well anyway, I think this patent thing is very silly. But I don't have to worry because I'm a software engineer and Richard F--king Stallman baby.
Patents are a huge economic drain. So much money and unproductive effort goes into patent acquisition, followed inevitably by patent dick wars. The final proof of this is the acquisition of large patent libraries to be used by big corporations in a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario, where the big businesses cannot sue each other without fear of reproach, but they can sue (only) the small businesses that are the real innovators in our economy.
I must have written thousands of words on why parents are bad over the years, and finally people are coming around. Mark Cuban of Shark Tank knows this, because, just like me, Mark is not an idiot.
Re: Many do not have a choice.
People have been making the point about training for decades and it must be a really good point because companies never listen. People are expected to pay for their own education. That is what is expected of you by Clinton's donors. But you don't have to have money, get creative. You can learn a lot by almost losing a limb, for example.
Re: Many do not have a choice.
Two years is a long time to learn the lesson about tailoring your CV.
People love to list every minor achievement, every technology, every system they've touched, however tangentially, and all of their out of date qualifications. The reason why is understandable: having spent a year of your life dedicated to some minor cause, you want to talk it up like it's the most important thing, even though it isn't. That's human nature. But drop the ego, and surprise, the offers come in.
I'm good at reading the first chapter, but then I think, gee if this guy is so great, how come he didn't put the information in a youtube video so people would actually give a shit? Where are his fans on youtube? If no one is talking about this on youtube, do you have any right to call it important? No.
Reading is such a pain, you have to hold the book, or the kindle, and then your eyes have to move move move and I can't stand it. Its manual labour for your eyes and neck. There must be a better way and it's youtube.
Can you imagine the crowd going wild over Zuckerberg's zingers? Not so much. Being a man of the people doesn't mean you have to love everybody, that's wrong. But you do have to love somebody, and Zuckerberg doesn't love anybody. I feel like his marriage is a strategic business move to leverage the China situation. If Zuckerberg told a joke I would be like gee, I wonder who wrote it.
Re: All the good engineers are dead
Obviously you've never used Windows 10 with a touchscreen because if you had you would know it's actually very good. Now try to imagine instead of having a full touch screen, letting you touch any icon, any button, you have another tiny screen in a different place, with a weird shape, that does almost nothing. And Apple literally charge more for that than a full touch screen. How is that better?
All the good engineers are dead
Apple will take credit for popularising touchscreen phones but now that all other vendors make touchscreen laptops they are still stubbornly refusing to do it, giving you a crappy ribbon touchscreen and all because their OS on the desktop is so terrible and all their good engineers have been dead for so long, they just don't care anymore. Right now they are basically giving you the finger with this price hike, because they know the Hillary supporters of this world will pay any price to fit in. For a computer that smells like a cheeseburger when you take it out of the box.
"intent that conflicts with our principles and values."
Will the new Microsoft appropriate Tay try to nickle and dime cash scrapped schools and governments for every penny by baiting and switching the file formats every 2 years? You gotta release new product don't ya?
Microsoft should know, kids don't like smoking weed or subversive humour, they want student editions of Excel and the new Zunebox 360. And if you won't buy the Zunebox, Microsoft will just buy your favourite indie developers and shit can their projects. How do you like that!
filthy type people
I am writing this on an iMac but my desk is only useful because I have a PC next to it. When people tell me all their stuff at home is Apple I suddenly feel a bit dirty, like someone just got done masturbating in the lavatory and then tried to shake my hand. Do you have an disease? Why can't you use other computers?
Re: If it was truly firmware?
That's how the economy works.
Take the example of wireless networking gear. There's two approaches:
1. a system that involves rushing crap to market as quickly and cheaply as possible so consumers can afford it and have at least a 50% chance of it working with their existing gear.
2. a system where wireless devices spend years in development and have a 100% chance of compatibility, but nobody would ever be able to afford it.
That's not strictly true, of course the telecoms companies can afford it and the gear they use is a whole other level of precision engineering, but it's not reasonable to apply the same rigors to consumer gear (unless you want to do it at no extra charge, in which case, send me your details).
some things to consider before upgrading
1. It really is your duty to upgrade, because if you don't, Microsoft will stop making money and their investors will lose their godlike power over you. Think how chaotic the system would become if your vote mattered for real. We can't let this happen.
2. If you don't upgrade on day one, then you're really just being disrespectful to Microsoft. Microsoft are a legal person with rights and I would argue feelings too. If you hurt their feelings then you are a Bad Person. Can you really look at yourself in the mirror each morning knowing you neglected your duty to upgrade?
3. If you don't upgrade then you are probably in breach of the computer misuse act or the patriot act or some such, so just do it now or risk life in prison.
I have a mild form of colour blindness anyway, so the accuracy of the sensor is not an issue to me as far as colour rendering is concerned. What is an issue for me is being able to get the maximum amount of colour information possible so I can make the best use of the vision I do have.
CFA sensors make assumptions about how "people" see colour. I don't see it the same as most people, so the assumptions they make might not be the best ones for me. I like the subtractive colour system in a multilayer sensor.
I'm not an expert by any means but I believe it works by subtracting the output of each layer from the layer above to separate out the three channels of colour information. The resulting values probably need to be scaled or something like that, amplified maybe, I don't know. But no filtering needs to take place in hardware or software.
Let me summarize my argument again so there can be no straw men:
Image sensors detect colour by filtering out two channels of light from every pixel. If it's a green pixel, the filter is blocking red and blue light, sending it to /dev/null if you will. That is light that was reflected from the scene you are trying to photograph. It carries information about the scene. How could it not do? That information is absorbed in the filter and never gets to reach the image sensor. The filter is removing detail from the image, and sophisticated software is used, in post processing, to give the illusion that the detail was not removed.
Pretty easy to understand right?
It's not really possible to see the loss of detail in an image that has been scaled down anyway, which is why digital cameras these days have such high resolutions, way above the pixel count of our monitors. But what if you want to zoom to 100% of the photo and crop another smaller one out of that? Then you are missing the colour detail. Foveon is the solution today, and some other sensor will be the solution tomorrow.
This is a fantastic tool for creatives, and I'm not going to let you rain on my parade!
"but far more objectionable are chromatic aberrations and lens distortion. Both of those can be corrected out by a decent RAW converter, but the only converter available for Sigma Foveon cameras is lacking in those facilities, is slow and badly written."
Obviously you have NOT looked at any Foveon images. The lenses Sigma use on their Foveon cameras are fantastic. If you can find lens distortion on one of their images, be my guest and post a link. I'll be right here buddy.
So which camera maker do you work for?
I don't care which weasel words you use or how many sock puppet accounts you use to thumb me down.
If you can't see how detecting the colour value at every pixel is better than a CFA, then you are a complete no hoper. You're either mentally handicapped, which I don't think is the case, or you are invested in CFA technology, which from your weasel words and lawyer talk here, is looking increasingly likely.
Stop dodging the question: Do you or do you not think CFA image sensors are perfect and that no other design could improve on them??? It's a yes or no question Steve, I don't want any more of your weasel words.
I like Foveon because it's good, I use the camera regularly, my pictures look awesome, and your claims to have compared the images come down to lies at the end of the day. Unless you can link some real evidence instead of constantly asserting things without any proof, you are just another internet troll.
Every claim I've made is documented in the Foveon literature. I have conceded the sensor can create noise and colour distortions but the issue must be pretty damn minor, because my photographs look fantastic.
Have fun trolling. peace out.
Well I think my Foveon camera is pretty damn good and if you don't like it then that just leaves more opportunity and fun for me. It's a bit like Linux in that respect.
In any case I'm not going to buy another digital camera until a new type of sensor is developed without a CFA. Foveon is the only commercially available alternative right now. There will be better technology in the future.
You argue that human eye is more sensitive to green, so why would it not be better to detect the level of green at every photo-site instead of just half the photo-sites? It's almost like you don't want image sensors to improve.
For example, I have taken pictures of buildings where the blinds in the windows cause luminance aliasing. It's not the end of the world, that's what it looks like with the naked eye. Not everything is a defect that needs to be filtered out. And maybe that is why these Foveon sensors have a small cult following.
I guess you miss the point. It's not a holy image sensor that creates divine images. It's just a different way of imaging colour. If you'd consider going back to film, with all the cost and tedium involved, because you want a particular aesthetic, then you might at least consider trying a different type of image sensor.
If Bayer is so great, then I guess this whole article is just pointless rubbish then right? He could have taken the pics on a digital camera and the amazing Bayer sensor would have created those filmlike images full of soul and life that the author wanted? Or maybe they would just be the same crappy Bayer images we've all seen.
The lack of an AA filter in Sigma cameras isn't a cheat This isn't a video game we're talking about. Multilayer sensors don't need your crappy algorithms and that's why they produce images that look like film.
So I guess the Foveon sensor produces colour distortions and noise. Well boo hoo, Stop your crying. Those distortions and noise are what makes the photos look good and not like your average soulless, dick-less, skinny jean hipster selfie.
Digital cameras lack soul as you put it, because they contain a bayer filter or some other kind of colour filter array (CFA) on the image sensor.
Foveon make triple layer image sensors. 3D chips if you will. Exploiting the fact that different wavelengths of light will penetrate deeper into the silicon.
Only Sigma make cameras with this sensor. So I bought one that I could afford on eBay, the DP3 Merrill. It has almost no features, a poor battery life, and is not even comfortable to hold.
But when things are working in your favour it takes stunning photos without chroma aliasing or that weird demosaicing algorithm stink you get when you zoom right into a digital photo. The images from this camera are exceptionally sharp and can be very natural looking if taken properly.
Re: ban all cars
Clearly you are guilty of blocking the doors with your dirty mountain bike and have decided to project your own lack of consideration onto me because I'm not "considerate" enough to put up with you violating the safety and comfort of about 170 passengers for your own convenience, and presumably, sick amusement.
Maybe you were hoping the other passengers would congratulate you for being able to afford it?
I'm going to get on the train with one of those big fucking unicycles since common sense and decency have been abandoned by society now.
If I could find a nice woman I would knock her up for quadruplets and invent a push chair so cumbersome and wide it would maim and kill pensioners, dogs, just about anything really. Because Narcissism is the new U-man right. To the age of three I'm going to push them around in a contraption so offensive nobody else will be able to use the pavement AT ALL. I hope you like walking 1 mile an hour because if you even try to get by I will start some shit.
ban all cars
If people want to travel they should be forced to stand shoulder to shoulder on dirty commuter trains, which would ideally spend more time sitting idle on the tracks waiting for signals than actually moving.
You can do your bit to improve the service by filling the train with some of your own shitty vehicles. If you have a mountain bike big enough to block the doors, your attendance is desperately needed on my morning commute.
Re: Great idea and all that...
It's funny how school officials always come out with personal attacks (gee no one has ever used the basement dweller line on here before). Having set themselves up as the supposedly mature adults above everybody else.
You make me sick to be honest. Take your saccharin piety to the governors meeting where it belongs.