Slashdot Mirror

Idiocracy predicted this.

I like the OSS pin.

The Seismic Intruder Detection Device has a striking resemblance with some toys you can find at a sex shop, even under a similar name...

Ruby only scored so high because of David Heinemeier Hansson. Source: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/47/127984254_ddd4363d6a.jpg

Or maybe we're just underestimating the intelligence of soap

Fooling around on an Orion space craft could be interesting, judging from the acceleration profile.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xeni/272469365/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ciagov/

I included the link in my submission but it was edited out, this is actually the original source of the information. Lots more cool spy gadgets to see in the above link.

Well before WWII women computers, including one named Elizabeth Williams were doing significant work like helping discover Pluto, using mechanical aids such as The Millionaire

Well before WWII women computers, including one named Elizabeth Williams were doing significant work like helping discover Pluto, using mechanical aids such as The Millionaire

Right, just because there are absolutely no other chipsets that work with Sandy Bridge CPUs doesn't mean you can't go off and build your own at home!

Probably Jeri Ellsworth has made one out of some bits of an old wok and a satellite dish already.

Seriously, is this actually an improvement?

>>Anonymous has no "core group of fanatics" because at any one time, Anonymous is engaged in fifty different things on different scales, and that "core group of fanatics" is never the same across all of them.

That's... wrong.

Look at Wikipedia. By your argument, Wikipedia doesn't have a core group of fanatics, because at any one time, their editors are engaged in 50 different things on different scales.

But when you look at the statistics for Wikipedia edits (even anonymous ones - http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/433360488/) you'll see the same superstar effect that you see everywhere else. The top 10% of people do 90% of the work.

If the FBI eliminate those top 10% - which is easy if they can own the site that people congregate - then they could kill either wikipedia or anonymous. Sure, you'd have some low level activity, but every group needs its dedicated organizers true believers who put in the time and effort above and beyond that of normal users.

Or how about newspapers? http://www.lazylightning.org/thisweek-ignores-creative-commons-licensing

Or rag mags? http://www.lazylightning.org/citypages-feels-copyright-infringement-deserves-a-one-time-pass

Or Esquire? http://www.flickr.com/photos/bill_roehl/5173042830/

Or restaurants? http://www.lazylightning.org/pardon-my-french-uses-photo-without-permission

This is simply the fact that people think that everything on the Internet is fair game for them to copy and use without the author's consent. If a bunch of people working at a newspaper, a respected magazine, and rag which have been around for 20+ years each don't know the laws in this country how are those from outside our boundaries to know?

Basically it sucks all around.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartyeates/105731936/lightbox/

Not much likelihood of GSM roaming. Take a look at a photo of Egypt at night from space.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28634332@N05/5146231463/

Egypt *is* the Nile. And not much near the borders...

Yeah, and then it it's most populated neighbouring areas are the Gaza strip and Libia. Not exactly places that have a lot of potential to get a signal out.

Take a look at Locans and Tourists #3: San Francisco, a map of geotagged photos of San Francisco based on a 'tourist' vs 'resident' heuristic (tourists take photos all at once; residents take them over a period of months). San Francisco is a divided city.

You might as well cut out the middle man:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/panasonic-kei/5036172390/

Police UAV spotted at the Bestival Music festival on the Isle of Wight UK September 2009 http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/3928900117/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/3928775803/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/3928937239/ http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=30814347%40N00&q=uav&m=text

Police UAV spotted at the Bestival Music festival on the Isle of Wight UK September 2009 http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/3928900117/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/3928775803/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/3928937239/ http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=30814347%40N00&q=uav&m=text

Police UAV spotted at the Bestival Music festival on the Isle of Wight UK September 2009 http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/3928900117/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/3928775803/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/3928937239/ http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=30814347%40N00&q=uav&m=text

Police UAV spotted at the Bestival Music festival on the Isle of Wight UK September 2009 http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/3928900117/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/3928775803/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/3928937239/ http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=30814347%40N00&q=uav&m=text

Here we go, a picture of the cake. Nothing spectacular, but it was fun having it made and eating it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kmakice/5389054539/

> most technically knowledgeable film editors and sound designers
Clearly optics isn't one of his strengths.

Anything beyond around 20 feet in a dark theater is infinity focus for the human eye and more like 6 feet in daylight.

What this means is your eye focuses the same for any objects 20 feet away or further, Such as when sitting in a theater.

So as long as the 3D isn't projecting images out of the screen at you, your eyes aren't going to notice anything unusual in focusing.

So it's all up to how the 3D content was shot.

Technical details:

What we want to know is the hyper focal distance of the eye,.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance The closest point of focus at a given aperture, at which infinity falls within the Depth of Field

Optics of the human eye By David A. Atchison, George Smith PG 214 has a nice graph on this.
http://books.google.com/books?id=MHgx-jBA0TAC&lpg=PP11&ots=DGJxkLC644&dq=depth%20of%20field%20human%20eye&lr&pg=PA214#v=onepage&q=depth%20of%20field&f=false

Astronomers the maximum iris opening is 7mm this gives a max aperture is f/3.5.
Wikipedia says f/2.1 to f/8.3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apertures

The focal length of the eye is 17 mm http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/JuliaKhutoretskaya.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertseber/2372620675/ Optimal Aperture For Foreground Sharpness With Infinity Focus
http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/dofcalc.html

I have some article on my blog about 3D content issues.
http://videotechnology.blogspot.com/2010/08/thx-and-blufocus-join-forces-to-certify.html
http://videotechnology.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-bad-3d-not-3d-glasses-gives-you.html

Who is Knuth? He's my homeboy.

You've actually never seen laser beams at night?

You've actually never seen laser beams at night?

Are you being sarcastic? I hope so! But just in case I recommend: http://www.flickr.com/

Flickr Pro imposes no storage limit, and you can keep your photos private if you choose to. You can also organize your photos in many ways, thus you can show them to your friends if you'd like to. Granted, I don't know any way of downloading many photos at once (ie. restore the backup), but I've never been interested in doing it either. Check this.

Flickr Pro imposes no storage limit, and you can keep your photos private if you choose to. You can also organize your photos in many ways, thus you can show them to your friends if you'd like to. Granted, I don't know any way of downloading many photos at once (ie. restore the backup), but I've never been interested in doing it either. Check this.

Also let's not forget it was Sony that pulled the plug on PS3 Linux. They're the only company to ever REMOVE an official feature from a functioning console.

Oh yeah that was a feature that 99% of the userbase used. An OS that was serious gimped by lack of good videodrivers and a lack of RAM. I can buy a second hand computer for 40 that ran Linux a lot better then how Linux ran in OtherOS mode. Are you serious ? Is anybody crying about Linux on the PS3 serious ?

And you think 99% of the userbase cares if the console was region locked? Really, the number of people who care about region locking or OtherOS is pretty small (and the intersection is pretty big). There's a good chance already that 99% of the existing Nintendo DS and DSi have never ever run a foreign legitimately purchased game (no, downloading the ROM and putting it on your flash card doesn't count).

Heck, did you know there was a small region limitation in the DS? Yes, games purchased in China do NOT work on outside-China DSes (technical reason - the ROM in the DS is smaller for rest of world as it doesn't have to contain all the glyphs).

PS3 games aren't region locked. Ever. The console technically has the capability to implement this, but it has never been turned on. Sony won't certify region locked games.

I believe they are actually - looking at the back cover is a picture of a globe with a number attached to it - that's the region number. Now it's possible that Sony doesn't *enforce* it, but it's there.

Example I found on flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/williamhook/2215951235/sizes/o/in/photostream/

They get the Pedobear seal of approval!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/170/456474931_0356ba4a8d.jpg

Fair Tax has some good features but it glosses over parts that would unfairly tax the poor.

No. It doesn't. The fair tax taxes consumption above the poverty level; the poor aren't taxed at all.

I'm going to lay some numbers down to show you how it works. I'm picking them because they're easy to follow, not because they're specific suggestions. What the actual numbers should be would vary, but if you actually understand the following, your concerns about the poor will be resolved. There are only two numbers: cost of living, and the fair tax percentage.

Lets say that the cost of living for an average person is determined to be $1000 per month. Let us also say that the fairtax, which is a tax only levied on purchase of new materials, is 35%. Those are the numbers. Here's how it goes:

Every person gets a check at the beginning of the month from the government. That check, in the case of 35% fairtax and $1000 cost of living, is exactly $350. So what happens is, as you buy your cost-of-living necessities, and you are charged 35% tax on them, you are paying it out of this $350 check. You have exactly enough to pay the taxes on $1000 worth of purchases: 35% of $1000 is $350. Three important consequences arise:

First, you're paying no taxes on your $1000 of spending -- because that $350 came from outside your income. It's extra. So this means, no question about it, that up to cost of living, your purchases are tax free.

Secondly, because you got the $350 at the beginning of the month, and you have given it back to the government it by the end, then next month, when you get your next $350 check, it's the same money as last month so there is no ongoing expense to maintain this. Just a one-time outlay of $350 per person that gets recycled.

Third, administration costs are almost zero. Everyone gets a check. There are no exceptions, there are no variations. So there are no conditions, no verifications, no nothing. Everyone gets a check, period. This means the government saves huge amounts of money. The IRS can be disbanded; businesses no longer have to collect taxes from employees; accountants, lawyers and other parasites will have to look elsewhere for their hosts. The economic gains are huge.

The poor person who is actually living at the cost of living line is now living tax free, period. The middle class person can also benefit from this, because they don't pay taxes until they start spending on options, upgrades, excesses. The high income person doesn't really give a damn, because that $350 is meaningless in terms of their income.

The fairtax is extremely fair. Proportionally speaking, it benefits the poor much more than the middle class, and the middle class more than the rich. Which is just what you want it to do. And anyone with any extra money at all, not to mention people who work the used market, can save money, tax-free, under the fairtax.

The idea that the fairtax is "unfair to the poor" or "regressive" is propaganda or misunderstanding. No more, no less. Modern income tax implementation is highly regressive, however, and does huge harm to the poor by hiding taxes in the prices of goods and services.

These cartoons may help you understand these concepts:

• How Income Taxes Work
• Why Incomes Taxes are Regressive
• A Fair, Flat Tax

Fair Tax has some good features but it glosses over parts that would unfairly tax the poor.

No. It doesn't. The fair tax taxes consumption above the poverty level; the poor aren't taxed at all.

I'm going to lay some numbers down to show you how it works. I'm picking them because they're easy to follow, not because they're specific suggestions. What the actual numbers should be would vary, but if you actually understand the following, your concerns about the poor will be resolved. There are only two numbers: cost of living, and the fair tax percentage.

Lets say that the cost of living for an average person is determined to be $1000 per month. Let us also say that the fairtax, which is a tax only levied on purchase of new materials, is 35%. Those are the numbers. Here's how it goes:

Every person gets a check at the beginning of the month from the government. That check, in the case of 35% fairtax and $1000 cost of living, is exactly $350. So what happens is, as you buy your cost-of-living necessities, and you are charged 35% tax on them, you are paying it out of this $350 check. You have exactly enough to pay the taxes on $1000 worth of purchases: 35% of $1000 is $350. Three important consequences arise:

First, you're paying no taxes on your $1000 of spending -- because that $350 came from outside your income. It's extra. So this means, no question about it, that up to cost of living, your purchases are tax free.

Secondly, because you got the $350 at the beginning of the month, and you have given it back to the government it by the end, then next month, when you get your next $350 check, it's the same money as last month so there is no ongoing expense to maintain this. Just a one-time outlay of $350 per person that gets recycled.

Third, administration costs are almost zero. Everyone gets a check. There are no exceptions, there are no variations. So there are no conditions, no verifications, no nothing. Everyone gets a check, period. This means the government saves huge amounts of money. The IRS can be disbanded; businesses no longer have to collect taxes from employees; accountants, lawyers and other parasites will have to look elsewhere for their hosts. The economic gains are huge.

The poor person who is actually living at the cost of living line is now living tax free, period. The middle class person can also benefit from this, because they don't pay taxes until they start spending on options, upgrades, excesses. The high income person doesn't really give a damn, because that $350 is meaningless in terms of their income.

The fairtax is extremely fair. Proportionally speaking, it benefits the poor much more than the middle class, and the middle class more than the rich. Which is just what you want it to do. And anyone with any extra money at all, not to mention people who work the used market, can save money, tax-free, under the fairtax.

The idea that the fairtax is "unfair to the poor" or "regressive" is propaganda or misunderstanding. No more, no less. Modern income tax implementation is highly regressive, however, and does huge harm to the poor by hiding taxes in the prices of goods and services.

These cartoons may help you understand these concepts:

• How Income Taxes Work
• Why Incomes Taxes are Regressive
• A Fair, Flat Tax

Fair Tax has some good features but it glosses over parts that would unfairly tax the poor.

No. It doesn't. The fair tax taxes consumption above the poverty level; the poor aren't taxed at all.

I'm going to lay some numbers down to show you how it works. I'm picking them because they're easy to follow, not because they're specific suggestions. What the actual numbers should be would vary, but if you actually understand the following, your concerns about the poor will be resolved. There are only two numbers: cost of living, and the fair tax percentage.

Lets say that the cost of living for an average person is determined to be $1000 per month. Let us also say that the fairtax, which is a tax only levied on purchase of new materials, is 35%. Those are the numbers. Here's how it goes:

Every person gets a check at the beginning of the month from the government. That check, in the case of 35% fairtax and $1000 cost of living, is exactly $350. So what happens is, as you buy your cost-of-living necessities, and you are charged 35% tax on them, you are paying it out of this $350 check. You have exactly enough to pay the taxes on $1000 worth of purchases: 35% of $1000 is $350. Three important consequences arise:

First, you're paying no taxes on your $1000 of spending -- because that $350 came from outside your income. It's extra. So this means, no question about it, that up to cost of living, your purchases are tax free.

Secondly, because you got the $350 at the beginning of the month, and you have given it back to the government it by the end, then next month, when you get your next $350 check, it's the same money as last month so there is no ongoing expense to maintain this. Just a one-time outlay of $350 per person that gets recycled.

Third, administration costs are almost zero. Everyone gets a check. There are no exceptions, there are no variations. So there are no conditions, no verifications, no nothing. Everyone gets a check, period. This means the government saves huge amounts of money. The IRS can be disbanded; businesses no longer have to collect taxes from employees; accountants, lawyers and other parasites will have to look elsewhere for their hosts. The economic gains are huge.

The poor person who is actually living at the cost of living line is now living tax free, period. The middle class person can also benefit from this, because they don't pay taxes until they start spending on options, upgrades, excesses. The high income person doesn't really give a damn, because that $350 is meaningless in terms of their income.

The fairtax is extremely fair. Proportionally speaking, it benefits the poor much more than the middle class, and the middle class more than the rich. Which is just what you want it to do. And anyone with any extra money at all, not to mention people who work the used market, can save money, tax-free, under the fairtax.

The idea that the fairtax is "unfair to the poor" or "regressive" is propaganda or misunderstanding. No more, no less. Modern income tax implementation is highly regressive, however, and does huge harm to the poor by hiding taxes in the prices of goods and services.

These cartoons may help you understand these concepts:

• How Income Taxes Work
• Why Incomes Taxes are Regressive
• A Fair, Flat Tax

There are some really, really, really nice trailer parks down there. Briny Breezes, for example. They got an offer for the whole thing at roughly $1mil per trailer. It's beautiful.

I was curious so I searched it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/70063259@N00/1539242302/

Beautiful indeed... if your name is Mary Lou and you date your cousin perhaps?

Are you kidding? Here is a screenshot of the absolute latest up-to-date version of the KDE desktop environment, and here is a screenshot of Windows 7. You obviously have not used Windows for the past decade if you think KDE's disgusting and outdated design elements are superior.

I'm just going to float this out there. It's not really relevant to the article, nor is it particularly valuable to any discussion, but the discoverer of the Voorwerp, Hanny Van Arkely, is absolutely lovely. Many 'dotters could probably kill an hour or two sifting through her images on Google.

Not to mention, she's an amateur sterrenkundige. If that doesn't get a nerd hot and bothered, I don't know what will.

Have we learnt nothing from the past?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3255/3179101952_3f729a500a.jpg
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/538/538263/starship-troopers-20040812003517858_640w.jpeg

Software can't go back and add the original light back to the image, it does a decent job, but there's a pretty noticable increase in quality from upconverted DVD to Blu-Ray.
Top image is HD, bottom image is upconverted.

Actually, i like to modify every little facet of my phone, but i'm not happy with the fraction of people working on Android that there are on iOS. (i'm not just talking dev's, i'm talking underground markets and dev scene's that are bigger than Android's official channels. check my flickr page:D http://www.flickr.com/photos/54754025@N07/ I love it when people say that android is infinitely more customizable than iOS is, cause it shows they know nothing about what there talking about.

Steve Ballmer greeenlighted the patent application after seeing this remarkable demo of the technology. :-)

1. (Relatively) Clean water.

A noble goal, but success... no. I own property on a major river and a mountain creek in Pennsylvania, and neither are nearly as clean as they were when I was a kid (the 1950's.) Here in Montana where I reside, to the extent that the water is decent, it is a result of state and local efforts. And that's not to say that the water is good, mind you, just that there are times when it doesn't kill the fish outright. You're still not well advised to the eat the darned things. If it isn't runoff from cow pastures or poisons leaching into the water supplies from the gold mining operations, it's just plain old crappy water. We've got a huge water plant here, and the water from my tap tastes like the metal men pissed into it.

2. (Relatively) Clean air.

Again, a noble goal, but no. The skies are filled with particulates, even as rural as I am, I see them (though granted they make for fine sunsets here in Montana), and when I fly into NYC or LA, there are days it is difficult to see the ground -- and not because of clouds. And the federal government has done nothing about light pollution as well. There are few places - like Flagstaff that have done the right thing on their own, but overall, it's a clusterfrappe.

3. (Mostly) Society based on rule of law.

That would be a good thing if federal law was a good thing. But it isn't. Federal law (ok, and state too) is often blatantly unconstitutional and almost always wrongheaded. From drug law to to interfering in internal state affairs (but I repeat myself) to torture to 4th amendment abuse to letting war criminals like Bush walk away unscathed, to bailing out those "too big to fail" at the expense of us "too small to prevent it", the feds have little to actually show that they use the law to benefit society at large, rather than as a cynical exercise in cronyism.

4. (Generally) Secure borders.

Ah. You mean the demotion of the promise "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me" back into no more than meaningless poetry. And you are also no doubt referring to the illegal warrantless searches conducted by the feds inside our borders. Yes, the feds are trying to "secure" our borders, more's the pity. No, can't give you this one, either. We are neither actually additionally secure by virtue of the ridiculous theater of border security, nor do we reside anywhere near the high ground we used to when we considered a person worthy by what they could do in our society rather than what paperwork they had. Thank goodness my ancestors got here before the "papers, please" insanity took hold.

5. (Mostly) Significant protections for individuals from the Government.

To the very limited extent that these protections still exist, they are the result of authority not given to the government, rather than by any action taken by them. Though lately, power violating those protections has commonly been exerted without authority anyway, so I'm not inclined to give you this one under any circumstances. I would, however, not want to miss this opportunity to point to the absolute failure of all three branches of the federal government to honor their oaths. And I'd bring up the FCC's deep and explicit role in repressing the citizen's ability to speak to each other in favor of the corporation's ability to dictate downstream, but it makes me crazy, so I won't do that. [wipes spittle from chin]

6. Roads

Roads. Yes, defi

Microsoft is rebranding the service "Notmail." http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvesfamily/5316203300/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr38/1308847889/

http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=portable_backscatter_technology_zbv_and_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

and now this? I don't think Nazi Germany was going around giving people cancer, forcing blood tests on the street and installing guard towers in shopping center parking lots.

Sure, we aren't singling out Jews and Gays, but isn't that in a way EVEN WORSE?

We're ALL expendable in this country now. Unless you have a private jet, and even then you might still get hit with the cancer gun when you're in your limo. Is there a good country to move to and get away from this? I'm dead serious: I want out. My country has fallen into a full on police state, and I'm ready to start swimming.

Nazi Germany was singling out groups of people and KILLING them _and_ invading other countries with the intention to kill the inhabitants to repopulate with Germans. I think this is worse - foolio.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr38/1308847889/

http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=portable_backscatter_technology_zbv_and_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

and now this? I don't think Nazi Germany was going around giving people cancer, forcing blood tests on the street and installing guard towers in shopping center parking lots.

Sure, we aren't singling out Jews and Gays, but isn't that in a way EVEN WORSE?

We're ALL expendable in this country now. Unless you have a private jet, and even then you might still get hit with the cancer gun when you're in your limo. Is there a good country to move to and get away from this? I'm dead serious: I want out. My country has fallen into a full on police state, and I'm ready to start swimming.

Many cities, including mine, have had electric buses for decades:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7605380@N08/838292900/sizes/z/in/photostream/

In fact, I'm going to ride on one in about an hour...

I took these aurora shots in NE Montana during the low portion of the solar cycle; I'm very excited to see what more solar activity brings. I wrote this open source application to help me catch them when they occur.

A cyclist is under no such illusion

The cyclists certainly are where I live (Vancouver, Canada). Every day I see helmet-less hipster-cyclists rocketing down sidewalks, running red lights, weaving through traffic, travelling the wrong way down one-way streets and on and on. The latest thing in terms of hipster-cool bicycles are minimalist rides with no gears and no brakes:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3133/3248144604_fdc29f42c7_o.jpg

While in these parts it's the law that cyclists must wear helmets and obey traffic rules, these laws are generally unenforced.

The Spectrum was significantly cheaper than the rivals. The CPU ran faster than the C64 but the graphics weren't as good - but what really sold it was the huge following it had in the UK. At one point there were three separate mainstream magazines available (I used to buy all three and still have them somewhere).

On price, here's the Argos catalogue circa 1985:

Spectrum: £119.95
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38301877@N05/3593465768/in/set-72157619206330728/

Commodore 64: £189.00
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38301877@N05/3592657253/in/set-72157619206330728/

The Spectrum was significantly cheaper than the rivals. The CPU ran faster than the C64 but the graphics weren't as good - but what really sold it was the huge following it had in the UK. At one point there were three separate mainstream magazines available (I used to buy all three and still have them somewhere).

On price, here's the Argos catalogue circa 1985:

Spectrum: £119.95
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38301877@N05/3593465768/in/set-72157619206330728/

Commodore 64: £189.00
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38301877@N05/3592657253/in/set-72157619206330728/