Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Books

How Google's High Speed Book Scanner De-Warps Pages 209

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the onto-dewarping-brains-next dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "Patent 7,508,978, awarded to Google, shows how the company has already managed to scan more than 7 million books. Google's system uses two cameras and infrared light to automatically correct for the curvature of pages in a book. By constructing a 3D model of each page and then 'de-warping' it afterward, Google can present flat-looking pages online without having to slice books up or mash them onto a flatbed scanner. Stephen Shankland writes that the 'sophistication of the technology illustrates that would-be competitors who want to feature their own digitized libraries won't have a trivial time catching up to Google.' First, a book is placed on a flat surface, while above it, an infrared projector displays a special mazelike pattern onto the pages. Next, two infrared cameras photograph the infrared pattern from different perspectives. 'The images can be stereoscopically combined, using known stereoscopic techniques, to obtain a three-dimensional mapping of the pattern,' according to the patent. 'The pattern falls on the surface of (the) book, causing the three-dimensional mapping of the pattern to correspond to the three-dimensional surface of the page of the book.'"
The Courts

Court Orders Breathalyzer Code Opened, Reveals Mess 707

Posted by timothy
from the take-a-sober-look-at-this dept.
Death Metal writes with an excerpt from the website of defense attorney Evan Levow: "After two years of attempting to get the computer based source code for the Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C, defense counsel in State v. Chun were successful in obtaining the code, and had it analyzed by Base One Technologies, Inc. By making itself a party to the litigation after the oral arguments in April, Draeger subjected itself to the Supreme Court's directive that Draeger ultimately provide the source code to the defendants' software analysis house, Base One. ... Draeger reviewed the code, as well, through its software house, SysTest Labs, which agreed with Base One, that the patchwork code that makes up the 7110 is not written well, nor is it written to any defined coding standard. SysTest said, 'The Alcotest NJ3.11 source code appears to have evolved over numerous transitions and versioning, which is responsible for cyclomatic complexity.'" Bruce Schneier comments on the same report and neatly summarizes the take-away lesson: "'You can't look at our code because we don't want you to' simply isn't good enough."
Biotech

Scientists Create RNA From Primordial Soup 369

Posted by timothy
from the that's-notional-primordial-soup-to-you dept.
Kristina at Science News writes "The RNA world hypothesis proposed 40 years ago suggested that life on Earth started not with DNA but with RNA. Now a team of scientists bolsters this hypothesis, having assembled RNA in the lab from a mixture that resembles what was likely the primordial soup. 'Until now,' Science News reports, 'scientists couldn't figure out the chemical reactions that created the earliest RNA molecules.' The new work started the RNA assembly chemistry from a different angle than what earlier work had tried."

Comment: Re:High performance of C++ equal to D??? (Score 1) 404

by complexmath (#26960549) Attached to: Walter Bright Ports D To the Mac

Second of all, calling destructors on a modern GC are extremely costly. Sure, your example implementation of destructors seems simple, but it is only possible in a reference counted garbage collector, which is so primitive as to be nearly useless.

This may be true if you want deterministic finalization, but not if you want dtor support in general. The D garbage collector is a typical mark & sweep GC and incurs no overhead for finalizing objects before the memory is freed.

It's another issue entirely whether dtor support is desirable in a GCed language. First of all, there's the weird restriction of not being able to use any references to GCed memory, because that data may already have been collected by the GC. Then there's the issue that collection is not deterministic. Some have suggested that dtors should only be allowed for "scope" objects, so RAII is supported without the false sense of security that dtors might provide for GCed data, but I think a fair argument could be made either way. Personally, I find dtors to be useful in a GCed language, if only as an insurance policy.

By the way, I believe that C++/CLI (ie. C++ for .NET) will call the dtor of managed C++ objects when they are finalized. And I believe that C# has some kind of dtor feature as well. So D isn't the only language to do this.

Comment: Re:Runtime design considerations (Score 1) 404

by complexmath (#26960305) Attached to: Walter Bright Ports D To the Mac

Although D apps can call C functions, D code can't directly use C headers files. So relevant declarations much be replicated in D if you want to use C stdlib routines. And since D does not use the C preprocessor, the structure of these headers often needs to change from C to D. So to answer your question, the user doesn't have to hack a new runtime, but they may have to create headers properly declaring the stuff they intend to use.

This process is pretty straightforward and mechanical, but the C preprocessor is sufficiently evil that it would be difficult to automate without creating a full C compiler that outputs D code. And I don't think this is the best approach anyway, since a lot of what's in these C headers isn't even needed for someone intending to use the library. Much of it is there for the library implementation itself.

"Call immediately. Time is running out. We both need to do something monstrous before we die." -- Message from Ralph Steadman to Hunter Thompson

Working...