I met a 50ish solo programmer a few months ago. His application handles an issue for a specific subset of nonprofit org (I'm probably not giving away too much if I say, churches). The app is not web enabled, it's not social, it doesn't run on ios android or mac. From our conversation I inferred he spends hardly any time on marketing it because he doesn't need more users. Yet he makes a comfortable living solely from the licenses, doesn't touch the app for weeks at a time, and adds new features on his own schedule.
I'm not afraid of a temper tantrum, it shows the client cares. Showing a basic UI that was generated by the use cases will confirm that you understand the client needs, reduces miscommunication and clearly highlights the feature creep you should be charging for. It helps the client sell the project to whoever she reports to. It's easier to change a UI and it's a stronger emotional lock-in for the client (so she doesn't cancel). Win all around!
"Naively, this sounds like one might (a) compute the translation from one pixel to the next in each frame, and (b) re-render the video with small motions amplified. Unfortunately, such an approach would lead to artificial transitions between amplified and unamplified pixels within a single structure. Most of the steps of motion magnification relate to reliably estimating motions, and to clustering pixels whose motions should be magnified as a group."
The math behind the grouping (recognizing the relevant area as an object, magnifying the motion of the area properly, and filling in the empty space intelligently) is the cool "computer vision" part.
I must be old; if Microsoft had even suggested taking a 30% cut of every PC application or purchase via the internet they'd have been lynched. Have most developers gone conformist/apologist?
No, the difference is that in the days of yore, Microsoft wasn't the market maker for your applications. Now, with the Apple App Store(s), you are being put before a large potential customer base. Considering how easy it is to pirate applications on the Android platform and how many apps are pirated, the Apple way is the most pragmatic for software developers who want to get paid for their work.
It isn't all that different than what you see elsewhere in the economy. Now that there are just a few large corporations who effectively control the food supply, they increasingly get a larger share of the profits at the expense of the many supplying farms.
If there were 10 different Apple App Stores you could sell your applications through that were all of equal quality, then the cut Apple requires would drop off significantly.
It seems to be an easy fix to reduce an unnecessary environmental impact, save animal lives, save money on carcass cleanup crews and wire damage, and increase public goodwill. Is there a FAA reason for having steady lights, is it bureacratic inertia, or are the rules accommodating the owners of older towers, or the manufacturers of steady lights?
I think if I were a pilot a flashing light would catch my attention faster than a steady one (cf, blinking vehicle turn signals).
Please take some time to research your inner techniques of logic, and how you assume outcomes and motives (in general). You appear (to me) prone to jumping to definite conclusions based on faulty logic and/or incomplete data. Not an attack, just a comment.
I can't fault him. Incomplete data is what we have in the real world and while he has shown no evidence in this story a lot of what we read in the media is planted to either pander to their readers or from public relation firms.
I don't think it is a bad habit to assume that this has been planted for some reason. If not, 7 million birds should be enough that you can see them drop in droves. 7 million is a very, very high number.
As noted above, 7 million birds per year, spread across 84,000 towers is about 1 bird per tower every four days. That alone isn't exactly noticeable, and given that most towers are located in out-of-the-way areas, that number of bird deaths could very easily escape notice by most people.
Either way, I still wonder why this story was selected and not some other story (there is only so many stories a news paper can write) and because I have become cynical I assume that it was either a PR agency or pandering. I have not heard any evidence for anything else.
You may be accepting the Kaiser rep's FUD. The quote doesn't say, "these needles break, and BD's don't", or even "these break more than regular needles".
When the Dyson was invented, the bag-vacuum incumbents wanted to licence his technnology and shelve it. He had to go solo to "bring his superior technology to market".
What's wrong with trying to get rich on a product? And using the profits as seed money to bring more useful things to market?
Then they need a lot of smarter military who can integrate this info, while keeping a clear head in the middle of a firefight, and yet be able to follow orders to the death. Soldiers aren't supposed to win every battle.
I expect that between the mental load, the cost of deployment, possible data changes by enemy hackers, and simply being able to pick up dead soldier's equipment and use it, that this will never be something for general rank and file infantry, likely just the officers.
99% of usage will be for entertainment.
> Then they need a lot of smarter military who can integrate this info, while keeping a clear head in the middle of a firefight, and yet be able to follow orders to the death.
Not trying to start a flame war, but I believe that modern video games are prepping for that. If you've played any of the modern shooters, you need to be good at keeping an eye on your HUD while tracking targets and navigating through your environment.
you could probably do some sort of reverse retina scan to make sure they're only used by the intended wearer
the threat of hackers applies to any number of technologies currently in use by the military
human causulities are the biggest limitation on the projection of US power, you might as well work on the assumption that you have to emerge from every battle as unscathed as possible
