Random Thoughts Thread

[RCBH928]

Point of Information: GPS systems cannot "see you from space." The GPS system simply provides a constant transmission of time-stamped data simultaneously from an array of satellites. Satellites broadcast their OWN position (which is constantly changing).

A GPS receiver can that can pick up signals from three or more GPS satellites can use that timestamped position data to triangulate its own position. The satellite does not even know that the receiver exists.

To use GPS for real-time tracking, that GPS receiver would have to also broadcast its own location.

Microsoft has a very good visual search. I just dropped a picture of the engine bay of my 1988 Suzuki Samurai onto both Yandex and Bing. Yandex gave me pictures of lots of engine bays. Bing did, too, but the top result was from a 1987 Samurai. I was actually really surprised at this. I mean, I knew that Micrsoft had a very good image fingerprinting/templating technology, but I didn't expect to actually get such a close match.

"GPS receiver would have to also broadcast its own location."

I understand the part where you say a gps receives a signal so I am assuming my location would still be unknown (like how a car radio operates), but if my GPS is broadcasting a signal then its trackable isn't it? and who to whom is it broadcasting the signal ?

As for "seeing me from space" maybe the GPS system does not, but if Google lets me see the world for free on Google Maps via stored woven-images I have no problem believing the US army (or any other big budget advanced country) have a secreet system in space that broadcasts live 8K video of the world. Yes, you can call me conspiracy theorists here.

--
I gave that image a test on Bing and Google and it failed and Yandex got it correct. You might got lucky with that image, but to test it better I guess we have to use at least 20-30 image samples and see which visual search is the best. From my insignificantly small understanding of web search experience, although one system is more capable than the other it does not mean the worse won won't be able to get one right where the better one fails at this point a "meta search" is better.

[Limewater]

"GPS receiver would have to also broadcast its own location."

I understand the part where you say a gps receives a signal so I am assuming my location would still be unknown (like how a car radio operates), but if my GPS is broadcasting a signal then its trackable isn't it? and who to whom is it broadcasting the signal ?

That really depends. If you buy a handheld Garmin system meant for backpacking, it won't ever broadcast anything, unless you pay extra for that ability. For example, Garmin has a handheld GPS that includes satellite communication capability as a selling point. But that communication is not over a GPS satellite, but over another satellite communication network.

Your phone can transmit its location to the cellular network.

GPS won't really work indoors, either.

As for "seeing me from space" maybe the GPS system does not, but if Google lets me see the world for free on Google Maps via stored woven-images I have no problem believing the US army (or any other big budget advanced country) have a secreet system in space that broadcasts live 8K video of the world. Yes, you can call me conspiracy theorists here.

A real-time controllable, configurable, satellite-based camera system like you describe wouldn't be very practical to implement from a technical perspective. Also, Enemy of the State was a fun movie, but you could defeat their super-scary spy satellites by just carrying an umbrella.

I gave that image a test on Bing and Google and it failed and Yandex got it correct. You might got lucky with that image, but to test it better I guess we have to use at least 20-30 image samples and see which visual search is the best. From my insignificantly small understanding of web search experience, although one system is more capable than the other it does not mean the worse won won't be able to get one right where the better one fails at this point a "meta search" is better.

I wasn't trying to claim that Bing was better than Yandex. I really don't know. I did a case study with one image and, honestly, they both did pretty well. I only commented because I happened to know that Microsoft had invested pretty heavily in buying and/or developing some good image templating technology.

But yes, you'd want more than 20-30 test images, but developing a corpus of (secret, unique) test images would be the approriate way to try testing the various image search algorithms. You would really probably want to further segregate your test images by type - photographs versus "cartoons," celebrity faces, landscapes, or whatever.

[RCBH928]

I do not understand people on youtube who claim that shooting their videos on iphone is "low quality" . Its in 1080P thats clearer than DVDs , I also never saw a video on youtube and thought "This looks bad, must be shot on iPhone." I can't tell the difference. Even Apple has competitions on videos called "shot on iPhone" to show how good the camera is.

[Limewater]

I do not understand people on youtube who claim that shooting their videos on iphone is "low quality" . Its in 1080P thats clearer than DVDs , I also never saw a video on youtube and thought "This looks bad, must be shot on iPhone." I can't tell the difference. Even Apple has competitions on videos called "shot on iPhone" to show how good the camera is.

There's a lot more to picture quality than resolution and frames per second.

The biggest things you're missing shooting on an iPhone these days (for normal stuff) are related to light. An iPhone has a tiny lens, tiny aperture, and tiny sensor. It's great for what it is. In a lot of ways, it's a lot easier and cheaper to manufacture a really high quality tiny lens over a really high quality larger lens.

Having larger lenses, larger apertures, and larger sensors gives you the opportunity for a lot more detail, a lot truer color representation, the ability to shoot in varying light levels, in-image dynamic range, better control of focus, aperture size, exposure time, frame-rate. It also gives you the possibility to shoot uncompressed video or stills, which gives you more and better options for post-production work.

But 99% of YouTube videos don't need those things.

[PretentiousHipster]

Yea the problem with those cameras is that if you don't know what you're doing it might look even worse than with a phone but it's a learning process.

[marurun]

Honestly, the cameras in phones these days are better than the stand-aliens were like 15 years ago. It’s crazy.

[Limewater]

Honestly, the cameras in phones these days are better than the stand-aliens were like 15 years ago. It’s crazy.

I'm pretty sure The Stand was about a virus wiping out humanity. Not aliens. But I guess I never read the book and only watched the mini-series starring Gary Sinise.

Really, though, modern cameras in general are surprisingly good for not a ton of money

[marurun]

That was an amazeballs auto-correct. Stand-alone was what I was trying to type. No amount of phone technology will ever bring touch screen keyboards up to physical keyboard accuracy and speed, alas.

[Ziggy]

No amount of phone technology will ever bring touch screen keyboards up to physical keyboard accuracy and speed, alas.

And yet, it's really hard to find a (currently in production) phone that has a physical QWERTY keyboard.

[marurun]

No amount of phone technology will ever bring touch screen keyboards up to physical keyboard accuracy and speed, alas.

And yet, it's really hard to find a (currently in production) phone that has a physical QWERTY keyboard.

I meant a standard sized PC keyboard. Even though I have a certain fondness for physical keyboards on phones I don’t really believe those are the answer.