Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 1) 172

There used to be a web page called "Your Eyes Suck at Blue". You might find it on the Wayback machine.

You can tell the luminance of each individual channel more precisely than you can perceive differences in mixed color. This is due to the difference between rod and cone cells. Your perception of the color gamut is, sorry, imprecise. I'm sure that you really can't discriminate 256 bits of blue in the presence of other, varying, colors.

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 5, Insightful) 172

Rather than abuse every commenter who has not joined your specialty on Slashdot, please take the source and write about what you find.

Given that CPU and memory get less expensive over time, it is no surprise that algorithms work practically today that would not have when various standards groups started meeting. Ultimately, someone like you can state what the trade-offs are in clear English, and indeed whether they work at all, which is more productive than trading naah-naahs.

Comment Re:123D Catch? Autodesk already has an app doing t (Score 4, Informative) 48

The differences are significant:

1) The Microsoft app works in real-time on the phone, rather than 123D Catch processing in the cloud
2) The Microsoft app shows real-time results, so you can see where there are issues, and continue to photograph until they are resolved. With 123D Catch you patch errors in post.
3) The Autodesk 123D Catch app actually exists, and the earlier web-based version has been around for about four years.

I'm kind of surprised that Microsoft isn't using the acceleration and magnetic sensors in the phone to help determine the camera position. It's one of the features that phone cameras have that DSLR's don't.

Comment Re:Upstart? Scarebus? Comparison to Concorde? (Score 1) 345

No, the major reason the B-70 program was cancelled was the increasing range (altitude) of SAMs.

Exactly. If your bombers are going to be shot down by SAMs anyway, it makes no economic sense to use supersonic ones. You'd just be wasting fuel and limiting payload. Instead, you stick with subsonic (or barely supersonic, if you want to count the B1).

Comment Re:Upstart? Scarebus? Comparison to Concorde? (Score -1, Troll) 345

Flying higher and faster was always the right thing to be doing.

Says who?

Not if it takes an order of magnitude more fuel in an era where the airlines are nickel-and-diming you for each goddamned bag of peanuts.

If you think that supersonic airliners are so lucrative, why haven't you started a Kickstarter campaign to fund a new startup? You're sure to make buckets of coin.

Comment Re:Yep, aviation is still safe (Score 2) 345

In one day, the Concorde went from the statistically safest aircraft per passenger-mile to the statistically most dangerous aircraft per passenger-mile. Kind of similar to the Space Shuttle: They both worked until they didn't, and comparatively few people ever flew on either vehicle.

Comment Re:Upstart? Scarebus? Comparison to Concorde? (Score 1) 345

Even towards the end of its career it made money and for a lot of people in the world

Only if you ignore the astronomical sunken costs that had already been shouldered by British and French taxpayers.

The US experience with the XB-70 led us to realize that extreme supersonic speeds don't make economic sense even for waging thermonuclear war. So we wisely avoided this supersonic transport boondoggle.

186,000 Miles per Second. It's not just a good idea. IT'S THE LAW.

Working...