Dude, I just Binged your sister...
Shuttering might work, but as you said, you'd reduce the overall framerate, meaning worse motion capture. Also you'd need to synchronize the shutters somehow, and that'd be a pain.
Filtering would change the sensitivity of the camera, but it won't do much to the laser. You'd have to swap it out for the specific band you're filtering to. Also, I'm pretty sure optical band pass filters aren't cheap.
My personal hope is that we see some kind of modulation in later versions of the device, either because Microsoft asks for it, or because PrimeSense just starts including it by default in their ASICs.
Moore's law (which doesn't work in every way, but it certainly works for the computing processors in this thing) would suggest that this thing has a lot more CPU power than the CRS-1. (In six years we'd expect somewhere between 8 and 32 times the oomph.) And yet they only encumbered it with three times the bandwidth.
Moore's law applies to the number of transistors on an integrated circuit and has absolutely nothing to do with bandwidth. Chip throughput is much more a function of the chip architecture than the number of transistors on chip. Even if chip throughput was somehow correlated to Moore's law, there are still unrelated inefficiencies in the physical layer that are very complex and difficult to overcome.
Well, all the hardware / processing requirement are moot given it's freaking Google we're talking about.
It's far from moot. Converting their entire video library carries real monetary and time costs that are quite significant -- even to Google. Google is still a business. It would stand to reason that they'd incur these costs only if it made business sense -- that is, if there is some direct or indirect return on investment. We'll see whether or not they find the ROI to be compelling.
... we're just not there yet.
And we never will be unless someone bites the bullet and starts publishing 3D content. I have a feeling that the adoption curve for 3D television will be much quicker than that of HD television since the latter relied on scaling up the world's LCD production facilities.
My apologies, that was meant to be an actual (non rhetorical) question. I'm curious about this issue. Can a third party accept consent to search on the government's behalf? Can the government require a company to require said consent in order to conduct its business? I'd be curious to see if there is any legal precedent on the matter. Related to the issue of "penetrative imaging" and the 4th amendment, an interesting bit of legal precedent is Kyllo v. United States. The supreme court found the use of thermal imaging without consent or a warrant to constitute an illegal search under the 4th amendment. Were the answers to either of the above questions to be "no," I'd imagine this case could be cited in challenging widespread use of these scanners?
This state-of-the-art technology cannot store, print, transmit or save the image. In fact, all machines are delivered to airports with these functions disabled...Each image is automatically deleted from the system after it is cleared by the remotely located security officer.
There are two interesting issues at play here. The first is obvious and of personal concern: privacy. The above, a statement issued by the TSA, is meant to alleviate concerns that the TSA employees will be swapping weird nudie photos of you, your spouse, or your children. There's a contradicting concern here. Ignoring the issue of whether or not the use of this device constitutes "search" under the 4th amendment, I assume they are using this machine to establish probable cause for an "actual" search? If so, the fact that images are not stored both opens the system up to the potential for abuse and fails to protect the TSA when they search someone who is a false positive.
Regarding the 4th amendment -- don't you have to consent to you and your property being searched before purchasing or checking into a flight? If that's the case then these machines are just a means for the TSA to carry out said search in a more efficient manor.
Regardless of the above, I don't like this one bit.
WTF? It IS a developer's job to worry about system security from an application implementation perspective. It IS a developer's job to understand the operating system well enough to understand the best way to use the operating system's APIs and services. It IS a developer's job to understand what software is on their system, because that software could be interacting with the program they are developing.
I'm one of the very few developers out there that has extensive experience in developing both high-level enterprise software and low-level embedded systems -- both hardware and software. I am constantly frustrated at the way people seem to assume the term "developers" represents some homogeneous group.
Your arguments make the assumption that the software being developed must interact with some desktop OS in some way. Not all developers are working on applications that are built for a target architecture that is the same as their workstation. Not all developers write software that must be concerned with a particular OS. These people are more concerned with things like motor drives, signal processing, etc. Many of them are highly competent at what they do, but don't give a damn about why you shouldn't disable a firewall on an insecure network -- that's somebody else's problem.
The answer to plover's question is easier said than done. A company that does any kind of development work needs an IT support department that is capable of understanding the needs of the developers and balancing those needs against those of the company as a whole. In some cases this will mean developers get local admin access, in others it will mean the opposite.
Good luck, and don't forget to disconnect your phone lines from the telco before playing with them!
All that said, I'd really prefer to see private investors step up for factories and tax-dollars only used for public-domain research...
Can you comment a bit more on that? I genuinely feel like I might be missing something. My take is that if the government can make some sound investments, why not let it invest in private industry? Increased revenue is a good thing, is it not?
Of course, the key phrase is "sound investments." I don't think Uncle Sam needs to hire a crack team of Wall Street day traders, and I do think there needs to be a ton of legislative oversight on government investment in private industry (to prevent corruption and the like).