No matter what you do, you still have to deal with diffraction [1], which means the resolution is inversely proportional to the aperture. I think the Trump/Iran release was estimated to be pretty close to the diffraction limit.
Just took a radars course and we definitely spent a whole section on just atmospheric effects / defraction. My only guess about how you could maybe lower the error is by monitoring and measuring the condition of the atmophere and building a model that can use that data to apply corrections and reduce error to your image.
Another technique is to use multiple camera sources spread out over an area. The angle between the cameras is known, so differences in the images caused by diffraction and atmospheric aberrations can be computed out to some degree.
As I mentioned above, there is a technique called lucky imaging, where you take lots of short exposures and only use the best ones. In astronomy, this can be used to reach the diffraction limit. You need a bright source, however, and it provides a narrow field of view.
Yes, but the aperture of the interferometer is no longer limited in the same way, so we could say that interferometry gets around the “naive” diffraction limit.
I think your question was misunderstood, as the other replies do not go into any details on diffraction limit at all.
I too would be interested in knowing if this image is showing all we got, or because someone else looked at it and said "sure you can release it, we've got better than that anyway."
The overwhelming consensus among (secular) biblical scholars and historians alike is that the Egyptian Exodus very likely never occurred.
The Pentateuch is a work of mythology. There is strong textual evidence that it's a compilation of many different stories and sources over the course of many years. It was most likely written centuries after the events it purports to describe. It is full of wildly unrealistic claims.
You're 100% correct that this was a case of good presentation and not investigation by the reporter.
Questions:
1. Can you point me where to find more info on UCS ignoring results that contradict their political positions?
2. What "angle" does a nonproliferation shop have in this matter?
3. The article attempts to present some evidence (obviously mostly not to a level required for independent, academic confirmation). So when you see you "see no evidence here", are you saying you need to see it presented in greater detail and to a higher standard, or do you think that the evidence is flawed or misrepresented in some way?
C++, especially modern standards of the language, offer far more than OOP features.
/If/ you know the language and tools well, there is no reason that C++ won't be as efficient in space and time as the equivalent C code. C++ offers real gains to be had over C for embedded software, with rich (if a bit cryptic) zero-overhead abstractions, and higher level constructs that can eliminate entire classes of errors.
Nothing guarantees that it is zero-overhead, it all depends on the efforts, quality and mood of the C++ compiler. Whereas in C you can at least rely on the fact that even without any complex optimisation it will at worst produce machine code that looks 99% like the C code, because it maps 1 -> 0.99. Good luck telling what is the complexity hidden behind a C++ operator.
Right, that was my point. You have to use time/effort on understanding the compiler workings, time that could be used to focus on your actual problem and features implementation. For firmware I wouldn't.
As the article and others here have said, if you have the requisite proficiency and understanding of C++ and the C++ compiler(s) that you're using, and if you are using a high quality optimizing compiler like GCC, there is no reason that C++ code will be any larger in footprint than C code.
As the author points out, C++ offers very significant and tangible benefits, and in the right hands/with the right discipline should be less error prone and result in more efficient code. In my opinion, C++'s greatest benefit for embedded programming is that it has a wealth of abstractions that have no runtime overhead.
The are several reasons that C is still king, but I suspect the main one is portability. Your company may need to be able to port its software to some obscure microcontroller where the only compiler available is a buggy C89 implementation. Or if it has C++ support, odds are that it is inefficient and out of date.
Because of this and other reasons, the labor pool of "deeply" embedded software engineers has a heavy bias towards C over C++. This compounds the problem, reducing the incentive for embedded engineers to learn modern C++.
The reason that the barrier is outrageous is not that it's made out of concrete; it's because of its location. It criss-crosses into the West Bank [1].
Np. That was just the first thing I found on Google; b'tselem does not have a neutral point of view. But the fact is that the wall is being built mostly on the West Bank side of the pre-1967 borders.
Probably RTL would be more correctly known as "Register Transfer Level" as in a level of abstraction, in contrast to for example the lower "gate" level of abstraction.
I think that this reputation is waaaay overblown, due to the mostly futile efforts of the Académie Française to preserve the "pure" French language.
As an American who spent a semester in a high school in France, I remember being shocked hearing our French teacher use "le timing et le planning" discussing our strategy for how to write an in-class essay. This was an ordinary French class for French speakers made up of upper-middle class 11th graders in a stuffy Catholic school.
English loan words (the term itself is valid in French!) are all over the place. "OK" is pervasive. Other examples include "stop", "week-end", "parking", . There are even strange examples where English words are used in ways that make no sense in English. "Footing" means "jogging". "String" means "thong". "Pull" (as in "pullover") means "sweater". "Chewing" means gum. "Baskets" means "sneakers". My favorite though, is "talkie-walkie" where the "l"s are both pronounced.
If you received a blank stare from the supermarket guy, he probably just did not understand what you were saying.
