Slashdot Mirror

Just finished work. I'm so sleepy that anything could make me laugh, but these ones did so especially. . .

Egon Spengler from Ghostbusters.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4190988749/

J Jonah Jameson
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4190276747/

George Lucas
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4176945104/

ALL the STNG figures. Especially Riker and La Forge.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page10/

Elvis
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page15/

Batman & Robin, (and Aquaman; that little curl of hair; genius!)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page16/

Okay. Enough mucking around. I'm yawning and it's sack-hittin' time!

-FL

Just finished work. I'm so sleepy that anything could make me laugh, but these ones did so especially. . .

Egon Spengler from Ghostbusters.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4190988749/

J Jonah Jameson
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4190276747/

George Lucas
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4176945104/

ALL the STNG figures. Especially Riker and La Forge.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page10/

Elvis
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page15/

Batman & Robin, (and Aquaman; that little curl of hair; genius!)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page16/

Okay. Enough mucking around. I'm yawning and it's sack-hittin' time!

-FL

Just finished work. I'm so sleepy that anything could make me laugh, but these ones did so especially. . .

Egon Spengler from Ghostbusters.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4190988749/

J Jonah Jameson
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4190276747/

George Lucas
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4176945104/

ALL the STNG figures. Especially Riker and La Forge.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page10/

Elvis
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page15/

Batman & Robin, (and Aquaman; that little curl of hair; genius!)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page16/

Okay. Enough mucking around. I'm yawning and it's sack-hittin' time!

-FL

Just finished work. I'm so sleepy that anything could make me laugh, but these ones did so especially. . .

Egon Spengler from Ghostbusters.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4190988749/

J Jonah Jameson
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4190276747/

George Lucas
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4176945104/

ALL the STNG figures. Especially Riker and La Forge.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page10/

Elvis
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page15/

Batman & Robin, (and Aquaman; that little curl of hair; genius!)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page16/

Okay. Enough mucking around. I'm yawning and it's sack-hittin' time!

-FL

Just finished work. I'm so sleepy that anything could make me laugh, but these ones did so especially. . .

Egon Spengler from Ghostbusters.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4190988749/

J Jonah Jameson
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4190276747/

George Lucas
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4176945104/

ALL the STNG figures. Especially Riker and La Forge.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page10/

Elvis
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page15/

Batman & Robin, (and Aquaman; that little curl of hair; genius!)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page16/

Okay. Enough mucking around. I'm yawning and it's sack-hittin' time!

-FL

Just finished work. I'm so sleepy that anything could make me laugh, but these ones did so especially. . .

Egon Spengler from Ghostbusters.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4190988749/

J Jonah Jameson
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4190276747/

George Lucas
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/4176945104/

ALL the STNG figures. Especially Riker and La Forge.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page10/

Elvis
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page15/

Batman & Robin, (and Aquaman; that little curl of hair; genius!)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27826007@N05/page16/

Okay. Enough mucking around. I'm yawning and it's sack-hittin' time!

-FL

Looks more menacing when the stormtroopers appear to have pincers.

Sorry man, I take 'em when I can get 'em. :)

Here's another shot from last night, if it'll make you feel any better

Took this photo of the aurora last night in the short window of full darkness before the moon came up.

There will be another shooting opportunity tonight, if the geomagnetic storm continues.

The problem is that the fading between the two photos seems haphazard. I understand that the point of the photos is to show the contrast between the two time periods. As such, you want it to be clear that there are two photos being overlaid. However it just looks weird to have, for example, people be half-erased. The artist could have instead defined a blending edge that didn't cut across any people (or cars, etc.) so that each sub-region of the image looked fully-formed and thus more real. I think this would have made the effect more powerful.

Exactly!

Almost any one of those "then and now" photos where people hold up an old photo of a location while taking a photo of it now beat this collection in every aspect possible.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tinflower/3611307186/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uwgbadmissions/3947916581/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uwgbadmissions/3768986885/in/set-72157621758292209/

Those have both an artistic AND journalistic feel to them.
The fact that you see the hand holding the photo actually connects you the viewer (cause it is seen from your perspective - as if it is your own hand), the person taking the photo (cause he/she is right there in the photo) and the location in both past and present.

 
The way those photos in the article are done now the final result just seems lazy.
Slap two photos of the same location one on top of the other, and then run around the edges with an eraser tool. Ta-DAH!

No skill, no art - just a gimmick that was old back in the '90s.

The problem is that the fading between the two photos seems haphazard. I understand that the point of the photos is to show the contrast between the two time periods. As such, you want it to be clear that there are two photos being overlaid. However it just looks weird to have, for example, people be half-erased. The artist could have instead defined a blending edge that didn't cut across any people (or cars, etc.) so that each sub-region of the image looked fully-formed and thus more real. I think this would have made the effect more powerful.

Exactly!

Almost any one of those "then and now" photos where people hold up an old photo of a location while taking a photo of it now beat this collection in every aspect possible.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tinflower/3611307186/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uwgbadmissions/3947916581/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uwgbadmissions/3768986885/in/set-72157621758292209/

Those have both an artistic AND journalistic feel to them.
The fact that you see the hand holding the photo actually connects you the viewer (cause it is seen from your perspective - as if it is your own hand), the person taking the photo (cause he/she is right there in the photo) and the location in both past and present.

 
The way those photos in the article are done now the final result just seems lazy.
Slap two photos of the same location one on top of the other, and then run around the edges with an eraser tool. Ta-DAH!

No skill, no art - just a gimmick that was old back in the '90s.

The problem is that the fading between the two photos seems haphazard. I understand that the point of the photos is to show the contrast between the two time periods. As such, you want it to be clear that there are two photos being overlaid. However it just looks weird to have, for example, people be half-erased. The artist could have instead defined a blending edge that didn't cut across any people (or cars, etc.) so that each sub-region of the image looked fully-formed and thus more real. I think this would have made the effect more powerful.

Exactly!

Almost any one of those "then and now" photos where people hold up an old photo of a location while taking a photo of it now beat this collection in every aspect possible.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tinflower/3611307186/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uwgbadmissions/3947916581/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uwgbadmissions/3768986885/in/set-72157621758292209/

Those have both an artistic AND journalistic feel to them.
The fact that you see the hand holding the photo actually connects you the viewer (cause it is seen from your perspective - as if it is your own hand), the person taking the photo (cause he/she is right there in the photo) and the location in both past and present.

 
The way those photos in the article are done now the final result just seems lazy.
Slap two photos of the same location one on top of the other, and then run around the edges with an eraser tool. Ta-DAH!

No skill, no art - just a gimmick that was old back in the '90s.

My bigger concern is turning and how the sections bend and twist between themselves (as seen at around 5:30 in the video). Is this on a rail or not?

Articulated tram. Similar technology also works for buses, subway trains and normal trains (some of those are internal pictures).

These are also pretty good:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31199746@N02/sets/72157622452249309/

I was in central Florida during the March 13, 1989 solar storm. Reach out your hand toward the sky and splay your fingers. Strontium-red plasma burned in the sky in a swath three times as broad as your fingers.

It just means I get to take more pictures like these.

I wrote an application that keeps track of auroral potential WRT photography. It's public domain, and you can get the latest version of the project here. Linux, OSX. Nothing for windows, sorry. At least, not without substantial linux-like underpinnings. Love to hear about it if you did get it running under windows, of course.

    That's what I was thinking.

    I'm just getting back into music after a long hiatus (almost 20 years). Still, I remember where the keys are, and the difference between the white and black keys. :) My problem has been transposing music between the piano, alto sax and tenor sax. It brings back a lot of memories, and a few headaches. :) At least after an hour or so of playing, I'm remembering most of what I thought I had forgotten. Now if only I could remember the hundreds of pages of music that I've forgotten...

I suspect that if it's possible to get very many images of the subject then you can gather enough data to rebuild what would be a more accurate image of the subject.

Yes. We call that technique "stacking." And it can result in profound improvements. Here is a before and after of stacking; at left, one normal shot from the camera at pushed ISO 12800 (ISO 3200 with an additional 2-stop digital push, in-camera), at right, the result of combining 36 of those shots and recovering the data through the noise. Kind of amazing, isn't it? That was done with nothing but a Canon EOS 50D camera and Canon's 200mm f/2.8 lens, no telescope, no tracking rig of any kind. I wrote software to rotate and translate each frame to get them to overlay despite the motion between frames, and then take a 48-bit accurate average of the resulting stacks of pixels; results as you see.

The Ring Nebula is magnitude 9, which is no minor feat to resolve with a middle of the line DSLR... but stacking is the big hammer when it comes to this kind of work. You want to talk low light... magnitude 9 is low, all right. And if that's not enough to impress you, there's a magnitude 15(!!!) object resolved in that same picture -- see the notes. Doesn't get much more "low light" than that.

Well, sort of, I disagree somewhat. For starters, take camera phones. What do they need to do this? [...] seems like accelerometer data.

Right, that and some computing power, which they also have, though if you do this at any speed, it's likely to consume quite a bit more battery. Yeah, camera phones might be a good fit (although they're also a good fit for a deformable lens, which could perform IS directly, instead of after the fact.)

Sure, a lot of P&S cameras now have IS, and a lot of SLR lenses have IS. Maybe that gets you an extra stop or two.

Actually, they're up to about four stops now. The new IS systems are breathtaking compared to non-IS shooting. Also, Canon puts IS in the lens; others put it in the camera (they displace the sensor instead of the lens) and frankly, I wish Canon would do this too, so the primes w/o stabilization would work better... I've no objection to both, with lens over-riding the body stab if present.

But what if you *also* had accelerometer data to apply? If you were in a really low-light scenario and a tripod was impractical (for any number of completely realistic reasons), could this give you yet another stop?

I'm guessing not. As you noted, the results are a bit of a mess. They're gaining in some places, and fouling up the image in others. Better to not have the blur in the first place, which is what real IS gives you.

See, this problem is only partially solvable they way they are approaching it; the reason why is that in a 2D image, the data that remains is smeared into an XY plane by the motion of the camera during exposure. Which they then try to correct. But the actual smearing that goes on is XYZ... yet there is no Z data remaining in the bitplane. An actual IS system can correct XYZ prior to the sensor so that the smearing actually is corrected for before it gets into the bitplane. If you can't determine the Z data, you can't deconvolve it, even if you have the Z motion (which they do.)

Low-light photography to me always is a huge game of tradeoffs between using a slow shutter and getting blurring, using a fast aperture setting and getting narrow DoF, and using a high ISO setting and getting high noise. And for that reason, I would welcome anything that gives more choices in that arena.

Well, in my experience, the best results come from using high ISO and the latest noise reduction tools (DFine by NIK is my favorite, followed closely by Noise Ninja by PictureCode), combined with the widest aperture you can get away with, and good IS if available in the lens or camera. Those three things can turn a tough shot into something quite smooth and interesting. For instance, this image was shot at ISO 1600 using a Canon 50D, and you'd be hard pressed to know that unless you have the shooting data. That's pretty much down to high quality noise reduction.

This shot was taken at 1/15th second, handheld, ISO 3200... using Canon's IS, and if you look at the details in the original size (click "All Sizes" over the image), you can see that there isn't a bit of shake/blur in that photo. Add some noise reduction (which I did) and bingo, better results than we really have any reason to expect, at least if you come from film, as I do.

In my dream world Canon stops pushing the pixel count for a couple generations and just works on decreasing noise.

I'm right with you, brother. I keep telling them to give us an APS-C sized chunk of the 5DmkII's sensor... they've already got the tech, and that sensor is *way* quieter than the 50D's or the 7D's... it'd be about an 8 MP sensor, and I would welcome it with open arms. I would much rather have 8 mp of quiet than

Well, sort of, I disagree somewhat. For starters, take camera phones. What do they need to do this? [...] seems like accelerometer data.

Right, that and some computing power, which they also have, though if you do this at any speed, it's likely to consume quite a bit more battery. Yeah, camera phones might be a good fit (although they're also a good fit for a deformable lens, which could perform IS directly, instead of after the fact.)

Sure, a lot of P&S cameras now have IS, and a lot of SLR lenses have IS. Maybe that gets you an extra stop or two.

Actually, they're up to about four stops now. The new IS systems are breathtaking compared to non-IS shooting. Also, Canon puts IS in the lens; others put it in the camera (they displace the sensor instead of the lens) and frankly, I wish Canon would do this too, so the primes w/o stabilization would work better... I've no objection to both, with lens over-riding the body stab if present.

But what if you *also* had accelerometer data to apply? If you were in a really low-light scenario and a tripod was impractical (for any number of completely realistic reasons), could this give you yet another stop?

I'm guessing not. As you noted, the results are a bit of a mess. They're gaining in some places, and fouling up the image in others. Better to not have the blur in the first place, which is what real IS gives you.

See, this problem is only partially solvable they way they are approaching it; the reason why is that in a 2D image, the data that remains is smeared into an XY plane by the motion of the camera during exposure. Which they then try to correct. But the actual smearing that goes on is XYZ... yet there is no Z data remaining in the bitplane. An actual IS system can correct XYZ prior to the sensor so that the smearing actually is corrected for before it gets into the bitplane. If you can't determine the Z data, you can't deconvolve it, even if you have the Z motion (which they do.)

Low-light photography to me always is a huge game of tradeoffs between using a slow shutter and getting blurring, using a fast aperture setting and getting narrow DoF, and using a high ISO setting and getting high noise. And for that reason, I would welcome anything that gives more choices in that arena.

Well, in my experience, the best results come from using high ISO and the latest noise reduction tools (DFine by NIK is my favorite, followed closely by Noise Ninja by PictureCode), combined with the widest aperture you can get away with, and good IS if available in the lens or camera. Those three things can turn a tough shot into something quite smooth and interesting. For instance, this image was shot at ISO 1600 using a Canon 50D, and you'd be hard pressed to know that unless you have the shooting data. That's pretty much down to high quality noise reduction.

This shot was taken at 1/15th second, handheld, ISO 3200... using Canon's IS, and if you look at the details in the original size (click "All Sizes" over the image), you can see that there isn't a bit of shake/blur in that photo. Add some noise reduction (which I did) and bingo, better results than we really have any reason to expect, at least if you come from film, as I do.

In my dream world Canon stops pushing the pixel count for a couple generations and just works on decreasing noise.

I'm right with you, brother. I keep telling them to give us an APS-C sized chunk of the 5DmkII's sensor... they've already got the tech, and that sensor is *way* quieter than the 50D's or the 7D's... it'd be about an 8 MP sensor, and I would welcome it with open arms. I would much rather have 8 mp of quiet than

There are a lot of limits, including the human factor. Photography is one, but try target shooting (like, with a gun). You'll never see someone who can put 10 shots at 100 feet into the same hole. If they get two, it's dumb luck.

    For cameras, sometimes there are extreme examples. I put my Nikon D90 onto my telescope (Newtonian). I was shooting using a USB cable to my laptop, so I could use the laptop as a remote trigger, and set the camera to lift the mirror, so it wouldn't shake. When looking at the moon, I could only see about a quarter of it. Due to the movement of the earth and moon, along with the long exposure, and a little motion in the telescope from lifting the mirror, they turned out blurry. This is my first moon shoot. I know there's ways to do it better, this was just my first attempt. I had a clear night, with a bright moon, and some spare time on my hands. :)

That bears out what I see when I'm in a city area, which isn't so often these days. Just using my iPhone 3GS sans tethering I'm averaging between 2-5 gigs a month. Last month, however, I had to do everything from the phone (including download of software updates, *and* the iOS 4 firmware)... from the iPhone:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/leoofborg/4814198808/

Filer.app (formerly Downloader) & 'Downloads.app' are your friend(s).

THANK YOU. I knew that I smelled bullshit.

I live (mostly) out in the country away from the madding WiFi crowd. Can you guess how much 3G guys like me are sucking up? It's not 500 meg. Try 20x that. And *not* tethering. At all:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/leoofborg/4814198808/

Lies, damn statistics and all that.

I admit that I assumed so too, on first read – that Anonymous was showing unauthorized use of his own photos in the summary – but they aren’t even from the same Flickr photostream:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gord/4728742939/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jtrant/3911790207/in/set-72157622221823079/

I admit that I assumed so too, on first read – that Anonymous was showing unauthorized use of his own photos in the summary – but they aren’t even from the same Flickr photostream:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gord/4728742939/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jtrant/3911790207/in/set-72157622221823079/

Actually OS X does it right. It deviates where it needs to, and does things the same where it needs to as well. My current Gnome desktop as it's setup actually looks a LOT more like OS X than Windows does (I'll even link a screenshot below). That metaphor still works well though. It's not different to be different - it's different only when different works well.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/46649722@N08/4838677771/sizes/l/

The "vendor" (it's a blog) isn't telling people to stay away from it, it's literally linked back to that dude's photostream and describes the license which means the vendor thinks they're following the license and doesn't think their blog is commercial use despite the ads. And he probably hasn't gotten a response back from the guy because he emailed him about a blog post that is titled Gone Fishin because the dude literally fucking left to go camping in the woods and included a photo of a hammock. Give me a break.

This is rich! Cory actually owns the hammock!
check this out.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jtrant/sets/72157622221823079/
WTF?

heya,

Have you actually been to Vietnam lately? Lol.

I went back at the beginning of this year. In terms of actual development as a modern country, sorry to break it to you, but the place is a dump. It's one of the poorest nations in SE Asia, and believe me, there are many, many poor nations in that area.

The people are awesome, if a little...abrupt/rude at times, but the infrastructure is a joke. They don't have a functioning railnetwork even in the capital city, their idea of powerlines - it's basically just a tangle mess everywhere.

This is a *neat* set of powerlines in Vietnam:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twenty_questions/3200848817/

Many of the ones I saw were just a tangle mess. They have open sewerage systems in many places - this is in the capital city. Phone lines, internet access, other utilities all of that is I suspect far worse than what you'd get in even say, India (I'm talking cities to cities here, please don't drag in rural areas).

Ironically, parts of the South are still more advanced, probably due to the French/American influence, prior to the war.

So let's see...the US let the Communists win, and the country basically stagnated, and went down the gurgler. Gee, great job now. And the government is still repressive, censors the internet a la China, and crushes any political opposition.

Oh, and yes, you can get a McDonals in Ho Chi Minh City/Saigon...lol. Western businesses are everywhere - ironically, what do you think is driving the recent economic growth in the country. Yeah, that's right, the West.

Cheers,
Victor

Everywhere I go in Europe (Including The Netherlands) The Netherlands and Holland are interchangable.
Want proof? Hup, Holland. Hup.

They even market themselves in international faires with Holland, Tulip and wooden shoes, even if the company is from Twente.

Did it look like this? If not it was a Winchip, which also had some green packaged models. I was a lifelong Intel man until I built a couple of AMD PCs for a customer a few years back, and then when this douchebaggery first leaked I switched completely. While the Opterons are nice I've found for myself and my customers the Athlon IIs for the casual users and the Phenom IIs for those with more hardcore needs are just the ticket. I'm currently transcoding a video with Virtualdub while I'm typing this, and my Phenom II 925 quad handles smooth as butter even while under load. As for bang for the buck I've been selling fully loaded duals for $450 with Win 7 HP, and the PC I'm typing this on has a 925 quad with 8Mb of cache (great for transcoding), 8Gb of DDR 2 800Mhz, a nice business class board that will go to 32Gb of RAM, a 1Gb HD4650, and 2 500Gb HDDs, and all that plus Win 7 HP only cost $650 after MIR.

Actually I've had decent luck "unlocking" bargain chips, and from what I was told back in the day on IRC with a chip reseller not all the lower binned chips failed to pass higher QA, he said many times if a chip becomes popular and is selling well they will sell a higher chip clocked lower just to meet demand. Intel did the same thing with certain Celerons, but of course they blew the cache which made unlocking impossible. While I haven't been able to turn any duals into quads I have turned a couple of duals into triples with no problems. Since I build my PCs to last I personally don't OC them and frankly with triples at $60 for an OEM at Newegg and quads starting at $99 I haven't even bothered trying to unlock lately, they are just so cheap why bother? While those Regor core quads with no L3 cache aren't good for gamer rigs I built one for my dad's office and frankly for SMB tasks they kick ass. He loved it so much he gave me his Sempron home machine (although that "God Damned Vista!" may have helped in that decision) and had me build him full Deneb quad for his home. Now he can surf, chat, watch and record videos on his PC all at the same time, all on a PC I built for less than $500, you just can't beat that.

Finally I have to agree wholeheartedly on features. One of the straws that broke this camel's back with Intel was how much of a PITA it was to figure out which chips had virtual mode for Win 7, and which didn't. it used to be you could tell everything you wanted to know about an Intel chip just by reading the name, not anymore. With AMD/ATI all you need to know is the label. All the features are enabled, be it a Sempron or Opteron, and the X(number) will tell you the cores, with Sempron (why do they even MAKE this chip anymore?) at the bottom, followed by Athlon, Phenom, and Opteron, and of course faster is better. For my customers, the average user "FB gamer" the Athlon IIs with 3-4Gb of RAM and a Radeon onboard along with Win 7 HP makes a desktop that frankly is faster than they'll ever need, and quite affordable too. On the laptop front the new AMD Neo X2 based netbooks are popular, as they are great for multimedia complete with HDMI and they are whisper quiet and get about 5 hours on battery.

So for those of us that care about competition, or really only care about having a good desktop at an affordable price, there really isn't a reason not to go AMD. The prices are cheap, hell you can get the new 6 core for $200, thanks to backward compatibility you can easily go from a dual to a triple or a quad (or even 6 core) without needing a new board, the new Radeon onboards are great for multimedia (I even played Bioshock on mine until I got around to ordering a discrete) and the 95w chips give great performance without heating up the place. I really have nothing bad to say about them since switching over. Now the only Intel chip based ones I build are for a couple of gamers that HAVE to have the biggest ePeen, no matter the cost. I pointed out that there is NO way in hell they could tell the difference between 100 and 120 FPS, but all they care about is making sure their PCs are highest on benchmarks and then they turn right around and spend 90% of their time....playing WOW. Sigh, I guess what they say about a fool and money is true after all.

Other platforms and tech products would inspire similarly fanatical followings most notably OS/2 and Linux

Most who remember an Amiga as their favorite computer think of the OS and Hardware as one beast. It's more like C64 and original Macintosh fans.

Disclaimer: I'm guilty as hell. The Amiga 1000 with Workbench 1.3 is still my sentimental favorite by far. I started in '78 with the Commodore PET, so there's been a lot of boxes to compare with. CP/M, Apple, and x86, and none of it remembered so fondly as the Amiga days. (Dang... now I want to fire up Silent Service and Fighter Duel Pro.)

For the afflicted, check out this incredibly clean A1000 a chap picked up last year, with the box. Amazing Flickr set.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blakespot/sets/72157621596272210/

I've got a ham station, and it includes an AM/LSB/USB base CB radio (top center in that image) and associated dedicated antenna. If the goal is being able to communicate in an emergency (and that is one of my goals as a ham), ignoring one of the most widespread tools out there is not the best idea.

It's also not fair to just say "rednecks and freaks"; there are a lot of folks in this area, ranchers and so forth, not "rednecks" by any definition other than perhaps suntan, who use CB as a practical (and free) means to keep in touch. I know some that are a good deal more sophisticated in both outlook and education than some of the characters I've run into here on slashdot.

For that matter, ham radio is no exclusive preserve of reason, manners, and intelligence, either. So let's keep the "redneck" comments down to a dull roar, shall we?

Velvia only has about 5 stops of dynamic range, compared to around 10 for modern digital cameras.

Looking at your clarkvision page, the Velvia graphic (Figure 4) is not there. However Fuji's Provia 100F is better. The bad part is it comes only in 100 ASA. Here's a discussion on Velvia on Flickr.

You ask me for citations? Then tell me what Ken Rockwell's citations are. They don't exist.

I asked for citations because you stated digital is better than film. I want proof before I'll believe it. Even pros don't agree on which is better, digital or film. But it doesn't matter if the only ones worth a dime are the ones you agree with.

Falcon

I guess they never heard of the Super Wild Card Backup Station back then.

So what's it like knowing, after blowing countless millions of sperm into that troll wife of yours, that this hideous creature is the best you could do? Pretty depressing shit, man. I mean, unless you planned on selling her for organs.

Your rebuttal is an ad hominem attack?

It wasn't a rebuttal, it was a comment on your sig line.

As for Libertarianism, do you have a better suggestion? At this point, almost anything has to be better than the two parties currently spending our children into oblivion

You want my view of Libertarianism? Check thisout.

And if anyone thinks google's decisions should be part of their compensation, they should know that google decided to return this as the first image when i searched for Radley Balko:

http://www.pescare.com/siluro/images3/micione1.JPG

The second was no more pertinent, but a whole lot less rude about it:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/94/249737018_3f387acbc5_o.jpg

Here you go, the Shark 2000! And yes, you could mount a laser on this puppy easily.

AT&T's approximate privacy stance can be summarized by the following picture:

Your world delivered(to the NSA)...

One of these should fix that: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3121/2769931762_56c635ac7f.jpg

As a world-renowned climatoligist, myself, I also have "incontravertable proof" that the Earth is about to burst into a ball of fire due to global warming related to carbon emissions. Just look at this photo of my research:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3526/3191599149_67d2e5b6ce.jpg
Do you see?! Our ice levels are currently diminishing to untenable levels!

"Just... go fuck a goat, you pessimistic bastard."

On a more optomistic note, if people keep ignoring environmental problems there will be plenty of goats

If you don't know what GPL and GNU are for, GTFO.
If you think Firefox is a decent GNU/Linux application, GTFO.
If you're still looking for the Control Panel, GTFO.
If you don't know Tux from SCO, GTFO.

Bandwagon jumpers are not welcome among real GNU/Linux users. Keep your filthy Windows fingers to yourself.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4049/4512283334_1ff93a52f9_o.jpg
Just the idea of buying the best card today or linking to cards like the 5770 together then hunting for games to play.

I've got a big screen - 204" diagonal - and watch 1080p on it. 1080p Blueray outperforms anything I can pull through my 10 mb/s pipe in the visual sense, and I'm not talking about anything subtle, either. Crisp edges, snappy transitions even when the whole frame changes at once, and when there is such a transition, the very first frame is fully resolved.

I've often wondered about the apparent difference in the ability of people to perceive the quality of what they're watching; I constantly hear people talking about streaming video as "the future" or "all I ever need", but... it's really pretty bad as compared to a Bluray, and frankly, I'd rather not spend my time watching it if I have a choice. It's like listening to music through a tiny, tinny little speaker. You can, but... if you have a good audio system, why would you?

I am very familiar with the differences between satellite, HD-DVD and Blurray, and Internet streaming (Netflix to youtube) against Bluray (and the obsolete HD-DVD)... there's no contest at all.

There are particular content types that really make this evident. For instance, high density CGI as in Avatar, the more recent Star Trek, and Starship Troopers all look not just a little bit better on Bluray, but oodles and oodles better (highly technical term, you may not be familiar with oodles.) Whereas your average shot-as-usual film uses wide open f-stops, most everything in the frame is blurry anyway, and who could tell if one pixel resolves from another, when they're pretty much the same anyway. Me, I like my films sharp, and maybe that's why I so strongly prefer Bluray. If you *have* sharp content, Bluray can get it to the screen for you. Streaming video... not unless the frame is still and has time to accumulate all its detail over multiple incoming corrections.

Now, with a screen the size of mine, I'd be tempted by 4k x 4k video, however, I surely wouldn't expect to see anything worthwhile from... youtube. Not talking content, just quality. The actual bit rate of [30 fps x 4k x 4k x 24 bit] RGB or YCC is horrific (about 12 gb/s). Never mind that we're already well past 24 bits, and that we like 60 fps. That takes us past 24 gb/s. And compression in this domain is lossy as heck; you do not get back out of the decompression the same content that went into the compressor.

You're not going to get 12 gb/s, or even 6 gb/s, through any pipe I'm likely to have in the next few years. So what happens is it is compressed to a fraction of what it originally was. And you know what? If what I end up with is a chunky, inaccurate mess, then WTF is the point of a 4k projector?

Now, if you're next door to the youtube servers and have a reliable 10- or 20-gb/s connection... well, your mileage will (hopefully) differ. And I envy you. But for me... Internet video is to be avoided if at all possible. 4k Internet video... not even going to try. Maybe if 1080p looks good, someday, 4k might become worth looking into. But as of right now, 1080p over the net looks like pixelated, frame-lagging dog doo... so 4096... no thanks.

A friend of mine who does some professional photography takes some really cool pictures while "draining". There are a lot of neat places down there!

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

In Asia, there isn't even a single piece of Graffiti in the darkest corner of the subways.

Can't speak for Asia generally, but observe these pics from my 2007 visit to Taiwan:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cathychang/sets/72157603572831113/

Have you used BeOS ?

Instead of Windows wasting the WHOLE space of the title bar, BeOS had two advantages:
  - they took up minimal space instead of wasting space
  - you can slide them ALONG the top of the window, so you could quickly switch between overlapping windows

Here is a picture...
    http://farm1.static.flickr.com/47/152400976_bef7854aa1_o_d.png

And another description....

http://lowendmac.com/backnforth/010423.html

"For example, a BeOS web site used to advertise itself with the slogan, "Little. Yellow. Different." Instead of having a title bar that covers the whole top of the window, Be used little yellow tabs. The yellow immediately sets BeOS apart from all the grays and blues of other operating systems. One neat feature was that you could slide the tab if you held the shift key down. So you could stack several windows on top of each other with tabs in different places much like the interface of Apple's web site. That would be fabulous, but when you close the window or restart the computer, BeOS doesn't remember where you slid the tab - so they all get stacked on top of each other next time. It is a little detail, but it matters."

OK. Pre June 28, team of photographers went to gulf. They presented their trip at TEDx Oil Spill conference in DC, along with other speakers. Afterwards chatted with Darron Collins (WWF, one of that team). He definitely confirmed that at beaches, anyway, BP asserted legal jurisdiction, had "blackwater" looking security guys hanging around - AND KEPT THEM 100 FEET AWAY FROM WATERS'S EDGE. Also, fishing boat captains who took up BP's offer to sweep oil, manage booms, etc. had to sign a gag order agreement on talking about anything and could not take non-BP-approved journalists along. All clearly intended to control information that would make BP look bad or not be "on message", to adopt a bushism. They managed to find one guy with a skiff who had no love for BP to run them around some. Also a seaplane was hired for aerial photos. I imagine that BP wants more restrictions imposed after an early flurry of "unauthorized" media coverage - but a FELONY? Anyway video of conference here http://tedxoilspill.com/live/#Session1 - look at about 32 minutes in and go on from there. Also from that conference was impressed by slide of Blue Crab Larvae with accumulations of oil/dispersant? (orange blobs in words of researcher at Tulane who sent slide to Darron just before conf. Screen captures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/fly_geyser/sets/72157624410128020/) Potential economic impact, not to mention crimps on "shrimp on the barbie" events of basic food chain life forms, is significant for American food supply. We are talking the biggest food marketing system on the planet here - VERY good reason to control the flow of info if you can't control the flow of your crude blowout. Sir, we/ve established motive.

The sad guy mistook a db25 rs232 for a parallel port... sigh

I've been doing this for years, since 1997... so this must be one of the oldest tricks in the book.
Here is my 4 step recipe for Ubuntu, using USB serial adapters:

1) hook up the stuff and config the terminals correctly (I used 9600 8n1 due to long cables, got weird chars at 19200+)
2) Install Ubuntu on your system
3) put the following in /etc/init/ttyUSB0.conf
# ttyUSB0 - getty
#
# This service maintains a getty on tty1 from the point the system is
# started until it is shut down again.

#start on stopped rc RUNLEVEL=[2345]
#stop on runlevel [!2345]

respawn
exec /sbin/getty -8 9600 ttyUSB0 vt100
---(repeat for as many terminals you have, incrementing the 0 of ttyUSB0 to 1 to 2 etc)---
4a) reboot
  or
4b) sudo service ttyUSB0 start
(repeat for as many terminals you have, incrementing 0 to 1 to 2 etc) ...
*) profit

Here is my setup with a WYSE vt420 compatible and two vt320's
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickdeckardt/4748415699/

Gee wiz, that was easy... So why is this on the frontpage of slashdot?