Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Silkroad -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (458)	8/6/1999 3:00:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 626

I don't know what optical CDMA is. It sounds like it would be inherently inefficient. Either the optical or the code is superfluous, because putting them together creates an unnecessarily complicated wave form whose benefits can be gotten more simply. It also sounds slow. So maybe you can clear me up here.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (458)	8/6/1999 5:43:00 PM
From: Kachina	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 626

Hi Frank, I would tend to think that wavelets would be a more likely long term prospect for that. But that's just my opinion from having some acquaintance with both through courses at SIGGRAPH. Personally, I like wavelet compression. (Although, wavelets are a type of fractal, I think there is merit in differentiation. <standing by to get corrected by the mathematicians>) It has a lot of advantages, for example, a partial decoding will give you a partial high level resolving of what you encoded. Among other things, that leads to the ability to use a number of algorithms for operating on the data. Wavelets are an excellent abstraction for geophysical data, for example, because there are things you can do with the wavelet coding that take a lot more time with the raw data. I think, for example, that one of the big failings of VRML is that it does not specify wavelet encoding for model transmissions.