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


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Pixels density (Score 1) 117

Except that it doesn't, because it doesn't. The 5D Mark IV sensor uses a gapless microlens array. There are no boundaries between the pixels, period. All light that hits the sensor's surface goes into the sensor except for any that gets reflected when it hits the surface.

Comment Re:Pixels density (Score 1) 117

True but the image will always suffer from less thermal noise on an equivalent sensor with larger photosites.

Realistically, thermal noise is almost irrelevant except for long-exposure photography (e.g. astrophotography). For normal photographic purposes, it's the shot noise that kills you in low light. When the difference between one and zero photons makes a visually noticeable difference in the resulting value, individual pixels are going to have noticeably different values than the pixels next to them even when they're getting approximately the same amount of light, because a pixel either gets the photon or it doesn't.

But that shot noise basically goes away when you downsample. If you double the number of pixels, a "pixel crop" (one pixel on the individual photo to one pixel on your screen) will give you more noise on the one with smaller sites, but it will also be looking at a much smaller area. If you crop them to cover the same area and average the signals, you'll find that the same number of photons hit both sensors and were detected, so the result is approximately the same, with the exception of the small amount of loss caused by the wiring around the pixels. And by the time that starts to become significant, you're roughly at cell phone pixel densities, and you're either doing back-side illumination, microlens arrays, or both to get rid of that problem.

Comment Re:Big surprise some jackhole Silicon Valley (Score 1) 177

rather than "show me the money first then I'll think about it".

That's a "no". Again, I don't see what an algorithm is going to do differently. It's still a huge risk and odds are likely that any similar cases are money sinks. What you need here IMHO is more than just legal advice. You need stronger evidence of the alleged wrong-doing.

Comment Re:Big surprise some jackhole Silicon Valley (Score 1) 177

With an algorithm like this, available to individuals, they (this new startup) could have made the assessment of whether I was likely to win the case, and funded it if so.

You've already consulted several professional lawyers on the matter. Why would the algorithm be any different? The only thing I see that could be relevant is that the business might be able to tap into commercial financial records or spending patterns of your relative and determine at the least that they had a sudden surge of wealth or spending about the time of the supposed appropriation.

Comment Re:This is the year of the extreme climate claims (Score 1) 408

Your claim.

I notice you have yet to dispute any of my claims with facts.

So many rightwing lies, so many facts

"Lie" and "fact" means things. We don't actually have evidence that Steven Goddard is lying. Remember lying is not just saying a falsehood, but saying it while believing it is a falsehood. For example, I don't believe you're lying when you repeatedly make claims of "rightwing lies" without the facts to support it (or for that matter much in the way of examples). You just are ignorantly repeating falsehoods.

Here, my take is that Goddard (or whatever his name is) genuinely believes that the temperature records are being falsified in Antarctica and that the ice buildup such as it is shows that the temperatures are actually growing colder. I don't buy that, especially since he's picking and choosing what he wants to believe. But believing such things is not sufficient to be a liar.

Comment Re:Stagnant? (Score 1) 142

I was just looking at this article which points out that Apple's R&D has gone up many times over since Job's passed on...

The thing is, that's usually a bad sign. It means that your development teams are growing very quickly, which has two effects:

  • The median age/experience level drops precipitously, resulting in poorer output quality.
  • The amount of effort required to maintain the products designed by more people grows by the square of the number of people involved.

Eventually you reach a point where every additional person makes the product worse or more delayed, rather than better or faster. These days, I keep getting the feeling that Apple passed that point a while back, and they just haven't noticed yet. This is one reason why innovative ideas almost invariably come from small companies, not big ones.

The other reason is that the larger Apple grows, the harder it will be to innovate, because the breakage caused by doing so will become an ever bigger problem as the code base increases in size. At some point, it will be necessary for Apple to start over from scratch—probably by buying a company that creates some innovative alternative. At that point, it will have fully become Microsoft or IBM. And that's okay. Eventually, somebody else will come along and become the next Apple. It's the circle of life.

Comment Re:Sterilized long ago (Score 2) 191

In our solar system only moons are tidally locked to planets, but no planets to stars.

Mercury comes pretty close with its 3:2 spin-orbit resonance. It spins 3 times for every 2 orbits. That's close enough to being tidally locked that the difference is mostly moot from a "cooked on one side" perspective.

Comment Re:This is the year of the extreme climate claims (Score 1) 408

Ok, it appears that Tony Heller may have written under the name, Steven Goddard. But what is the evidence for fraud? You ever going to provide a link for that or even, a rational argument (which would be even better)?

"argumentum ad populum" "argumentum ad venicundium" and simple lying.

Words have meaning. "argumentum ad venicundium" is argument from authority which again, I haven't done here or elsewhere. But if we're to look for a ready example of the tactic, argument from consensus is a classic example of both fallacies you mentioned here.

As to "simple lying", you ignore here that lying is a deliberate telling of a falsehood. Since I have yet to tell a falsehood here much less a deliberate one, your accusation is completely irrelevant.

It's remarkable how completely shit your arguments have been to this point. I understand that your time is valueless to you, but my time has value to me. I see no point in arguing with someone who can't even do basic reasoning and rhetoric. At this point, it's not even educational for would-be passers-by. They can see your true colors.

Comment Re:This is the year of the extreme climate claims (Score 1) 408

argumentum ad populum does not support your "rejection" of the facts

Words have meaning. Here, "argumentum ad populum" means the fallacy of claiming something is true because many people believe it. A genuine example of such an fallacy is argument from consensus. What I find remarkable is the complete absence of such a fallacy from my writings and yet you still push this.

Comment Re:There is no "removing" of anything... (Score 3, Interesting) 376

If the new phone doesn't have a headphone jack, it'll be all over the Internet. There will be almost no way to avoid knowing that the iPhone 7 doesn't have a headphone jack.

That's not where the user impact comes in. Most people don't use headphones constantly. They use them occasionally. And they will think to themselves, "That's not a big deal." Then, at some point in the distant future:

  • They're at a friend's house and want to play some song. Their friend has an Android phone, and a stereo with only an 1/8" plug.
  • They're out somewhere and think, "I'd like to listen to some music while I walk from A to B" and then realize that their Bluetooth earbuds aren't charged.
  • The stewardess tells them that they can't use wireless headsets (that's a per-airline policy decision) and offers to sell them a headset for $3, but oops, no adapter.

And so on. And suddenly, what seemed like it didn't matter suddenly matters, and you have a pissed off customer.

Slashdot Top Deals

"What the scientists have in their briefcases is terrifying." -- Nikita Khrushchev