 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/01/2011 06:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Ah, but what's this I see? A "privacy filter"? Yes, it's a small piece
>> of plastic which is transparent only when viewed from certain
>> directions. In other words, you stick it to your screen to reduce the
>> viewing angle. WTF, people!? :-D
>
> What part of "privacy" did you misunderstand?
Engineers spend decades designing an LCD with a wide viewing angle, and
then a company sells you a device to narrow the viewing angle again. :-D
How absurd.
I'm reminded of Flanders & Swan:
I had a little gramophone,
I'd wind it round and round.
And with a sharpish needle,
It made a cheerful sound.
And then they amplified it,
It was much louder then.
And you sharpened fibre needles,
To make it soft again.
At any rate, all this device does is mean that anybody wanting to
shoulder surf needs to stand somewhat closer to you. It doesn't
magically stop people seeing what's on your screen, it just makes it
mildly harder. (For *you* as well as everybody else.)
> Let me blow your mind:
>
>
http://www.dealextreme.com/p/usb-rechargeable-1-3mp-pin-hole-spy-av-camera-disguised-as-sunglasses-tf-slot-42736
An amusing novelty toy, I'm sure...
>> Quite why anybody would pay for an expensive 2MP photosensor and then
>> stick it behind a crappy 7mm lens I have no idea.
>
> I've never understood that, unless a 2MP photosensor is actually cheaper
> in bulk than a lower quality one.
Well, perhaps. I rather suspect it's because most people think the
sensor is the *only* thing that determines picture quality, so they will
simply buy the camera with the highest pixel rating.
(I vaguely recall somebody did an experiment that went something like
this: Take a photograph. Make two edited copies of it. One is slightly
sharper, the other has slightly brighter colours. Ask people which one
they prefer. That's your control group. Now ask another bunch of people,
but first tell them that one picture came from a 2MP camera and the
other from an 8MP camera. Apparently the majority preferred the 8MP
image, regardless of which one you claim to be 8MP. In other words, what
the image actually looks like has no effect on consumer choice. People
are stupid.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/01/2011 05:26 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> It's extremely popular, apparently.
>
> The Z80 is the CPU of choice for things that need a low-power CPU. Like,
> digital voice recorders, toasters, remote controls, etc.
Indeed. Apparently there's significant demand for Z80 programmers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> On 25/01/2011 06:28 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> OK, so you can change the frequency weightings and how often a
>>> keyframe is put in, and so forth. I'm not seeing much that
>>> fundamentally changes the whole algorithm such that it might require
>>> less computer power.
>>
>> Making every frame a keyframe reduces the computing and memory you need.
>
> Presumably the bitrate is going to skyrocket if you do that though.
Yes. Or the quality sucks ass.
>> Not doing motion prediction reduces how much compute power you need.
>
> Does the standard actually allow that?
I would think so. All you have to do is say you didn't find any motion. Or
perhaps only look for identical pixels at the identical place (i.e., motion
prediction of zero velocity).
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> At any rate, all this device does is mean that anybody wanting to
> shoulder surf needs to stand somewhat closer to you.
They need to not be behind you, is all. So, if you're a bank teller trying
to keep the customers from peeking, or you're sitting on an airplane
working, or ....
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:28:49 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I've seen printers and so forth that use old x86 CPUs inside.
You'd be shocked to learn that 8086 and even 8085 processors are still in
use. Generally (in my experience) in aviation, where high speed is less
important than reliability, stability, and the ability to operate without
generating a lot of heat (which increases the life of the chip).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:15:26 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Engineers spend decades designing an LCD with a wide viewing angle, and
> then a company sells you a device to narrow the viewing angle again. :-D
> How absurd.
Of course, because when you're using your laptop on a long flight,
sharing company confidential information with everyone in your row is a
good idea.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/01/2011 10:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:28:49 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> I've seen printers and so forth that use old x86 CPUs inside.
>
> You'd be shocked to learn that 8086 and even 8085 processors are still in
> use.
Given that I said a little while ago that the Z80 is still wicked
popular... not really, no. ;-)
As I said, products don't "die", they just move down the food chain.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/01/2011 10:04 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:15:26 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>> Engineers spend decades designing an LCD with a wide viewing angle, and
>> then a company sells you a device to narrow the viewing angle again. :-D
>> How absurd.
>
> Of course, because when you're using your laptop on a long flight,
> sharing company confidential information with everyone in your row is a
> good idea.
Then you shouldn't be using your laptop. Obviously.
(Besides, don't they insist that all electronic devices are turned off
for the duration of the flight?)
It would be only too easy for the guy behind you to peek between the
seats and see your screen - something which even this silly angle
limiter wouldn't prevent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/01/2011 9:30 AM, Invisible wrote:
> (Besides, don't they insist that all electronic devices are turned off
> for the duration of the flight?)
Only during take-off and landing. During the flight you can operate
electronic devices as long as they are in aeroplane mode. That is no
WiFi, Bluetooth or phone transmissions.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> You'd be shocked to learn that 8086 and even 8085 processors are still in
> use. Generally (in my experience) in aviation, where high speed is less
> important than reliability, stability, and the ability to operate without
> generating a lot of heat (which increases the life of the chip).
One could assume that if a 8086 was redesigned with modern technology,
it could be built to take a hundreth of the space, made to consume a tenth
of the energy and to produce a tenth of heat.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
