Slashdot Mirror

Original pic
http://ompldr.org/vNHJ1aw

Posted by anon some time later
http://ompldr.org/vNmRjbQ
http://ompldr.org/vNmRjag
http://ompldr.org/vNmRjbg

Heh. Thought the same thing.

http://ompldr.org/vNnVoOQ/tie-fighter-invasion.jpg

(Here's to hoping he'd think this is funny, not want to sue me.)

ur mum's face just replied to say you're even fuglier than she is, but at least she has a dick

Actually, no. That is a backward apostrophe used as an opening single-quote mark in typefaces where the ' looks slanted.

E.g. http://ompldr.org/vNnJ2bQ/untitled.png (Apostrophe is the 8th char in; the ` is directly before the lowercase alphabet.)

I don’t think you actually tried that.

Nobody said it was a crime. Just not "safe".

no, u!

They only show the first little bit in the awesomebar

I’m not seeing the problem, I see the whole URL, granted if the URL is really long I guess you wouldn’t see the whole thing, but that same limitation would apply to the status bar, too.

Is there an option to turn that functionality back on?

It still shows the URL in the status bar if you open up the History sidebar, so that might work for you.

Good catch. Slashdot should have posted the photo along with its credit. Shame on you, Slashdot.

First of all, the low points in the graph prove that users don’t “always” consume all of what is available. They only do when the demand is actually that high (wow, what a revelation).

Go look at that graph again (here it is) and instead of the flatline, imagine that curve extrapolated up to where it ought to be. Where does it peak, somewhere around 200%? So you could actually double that network’s capacity and still be thinking “oh my god they’re just using it all up!” No, that’s just the normal demand... triple the network’s capacity, and you’d likely find that you have excess capacity at all times.

So no, the users don’t just “ALWAYS consume what is available”. They consume all of what is available when what’s available is less than the normal demand ought to be.

You’re just stuck in the position of being so ridiculously over-sold that the demand is 2x what you can supply. And you really only have yourselves to blame for that.

Alternate-alternate-site for people who can’t access either imageshack or glowfoto:
Image #1: http://ompldr.org/vNms2aQ/ntoday.gif
Image #2: http://ompldr.org/vNms2ag/sqnday.gif
Image #3: http://ompldr.org/vNms2aw/ntomonth.gif

Alternate-alternate-site for people who can’t access either imageshack or glowfoto:
Image #1: http://ompldr.org/vNms2aQ/ntoday.gif
Image #2: http://ompldr.org/vNms2ag/sqnday.gif
Image #3: http://ompldr.org/vNms2aw/ntomonth.gif

Alternate-alternate-site for people who can’t access either imageshack or glowfoto:
Image #1: http://ompldr.org/vNms2aQ/ntoday.gif
Image #2: http://ompldr.org/vNms2ag/sqnday.gif
Image #3: http://ompldr.org/vNms2aw/ntomonth.gif

i am not a troll. i am michael kristopeit.

would a coward participate in the winter oympics?

would a coward go karting down nottingham?

would a coward serve his country in iraq?

did your mother name you "martas"?

you are a pathetic, ignorant hypocrite.

you are NOTHING.

i am not a troll. i am michael kristopeit.

would a coward participate in the winter oympics?

would a coward go karting down nottingham?

would a coward serve his country in iraq?

did your mother name you "martas"?

you are a pathetic, ignorant hypocrite.

you are NOTHING.

i am not a troll. i am michael kristopeit.

would a coward participate in the winter oympics?

would a coward go karting down nottingham?

would a coward serve his country in iraq?

did your mother name you "martas"?

you are a pathetic, ignorant hypocrite.

you are NOTHING.

I’m pretty sure that qualifies as an EPIC fail.

i am not a coward. i am michael kristopeit.

would a coward participate in the winter oympics?

would a coward go karting down nottingham?

would a coward serve his country in iraq?

did your mother name you "MyLongNickName"?

you are a pathetic, ignorant hypocrite.

you are NOTHING.

i am not a coward. i am michael kristopeit.

would a coward participate in the winter oympics?

would a coward go karting down nottingham?

would a coward serve his country in iraq?

did your mother name you "MyLongNickName"?

you are a pathetic, ignorant hypocrite.

you are NOTHING.

i am not a coward. i am michael kristopeit.

would a coward participate in the winter oympics?

would a coward go karting down nottingham?

would a coward serve his country in iraq?

did your mother name you "MyLongNickName"?

you are a pathetic, ignorant hypocrite.

you are NOTHING.

He didn't come up with this design to save the freaking world, he recognized his father's problem

I had the same problem and solved it with much less fan-fare. I just set the phone atop the charger, like this.

Do I get a patent?

and then realized he could make money for solving it

No, he realised he could make money by preventing anyone else from solving it in the same way that he thought of. Now if they want to use a little shelf, they have to buy it from him.

At least my solution doesn’t infringe on his patent, so he can’t sue me...

ORLY?

Well, I invented this:

http://ompldr.org/vNmQ5ZA/bilde.jpg

I doubt it’s patentable, though. It makes too much sense and you don’t need a silly shelf.

ur mum's face is obvious, moron.

I have learned to HATE overlapping windows and would love to have a tabbed & tiling window manager for Windows

Tabbed no can do, but tiling is done by Task Manager from XP and up. Ctrl-click to select multiple applications.

I can only assume no one's that excited by huge sight-replacing devices with 512 "taxel" resolution*, except as a step toward better things.

*I've tried to imagine this and even asked Google to come up with an image that showed what this might 'look' like and come up with nothing

What I found indicated that the 512 taxels are arranged in a 32x16 grid (a 4x2 arrangement of 8x8 separate electrode grids).

Obviously it’s tactile, not visual, but I took an image off google images, reduced it to 32x16, grayscaled it, and scaled it back up using the Sinc (Lanczos3) method. This was the result.

I invite you to look at your TCP connections and all those instances of svchost.exe running on your system... and you never had to click "Allow" to let them communicate over the net.

And I invite you to use SysInternals’ Process Explorer and find out what those actually are.

Sorry, typo in URL
http://ompldr.org/vM2kwZA

http://ompldr.org/vNjA3aw

is this him?

well, you obviously want it, so here.

ur mums fugly face

actually i have had blood work done to test for a marrow match that has proven my paternity

Really? What a waste of good money. Anyone could have told you that already.

Oh well, at least the money will be put to better use than you otherwise could have. I’m sure doctors have to eat and put gas in their cars just like everyone else... whereas you’re just a waste of perfectly good carbon.

No; it is true, and in fact the distance traveled by the ball will also be finite and calculable, because each bounce is some constant percentage smaller than the previous.

Suppose the ball bounces to 1/2 its original height with each bounce, and you toss it upward from the ground with just enough velocity initially that it reaches a height of 0.25 meters. It travels 0.5 meters in total (0.25 meters up and 0.25 meters back down) before its first bounce, travels 0.25 meters on that bounce, 0.125 meters on the next, etc. How far does it travel in total before it stops bouncing?

The answer is 1 meter.

This image visualizes exactly that... and since this is Slashdot I will also point out that the distance it travels is the repeating decimal 0.11111... in binary.

unfortunately

Did a retard name you Michael?

No... in fact it took TWO retards to produce something as spectacularly retarded as you.

lololol i'm an idiot

As a matter of fact, I did just that. Theirs is a hopeless mess of spaghetti.

http://ompldr.org/vNXFndg/lawsuitmap.gif

You forgot its other 2 factors:1 & 33. You can plot the bits as a 2d image in one other, final, pattern: 1 row of 33.

If you’re interpreting it as a repeating tile pattern you might as well be complete, and the 1x tile is a non-trivial solution since you can align it in 33 different ways relative to its neighbouring tiles. And it does make some interesting patterns, but I still doubt that it’s meant to be interpreted that way...

You forgot its other 2 factors:1 & 33. You can plot the bits as a 2d image in one other, final, pattern: 1 row of 33.

If you’re interpreting it as a repeating tile pattern you might as well be complete, and the 1x tile is a non-trivial solution since you can align it in 33 different ways relative to its neighbouring tiles. And it does make some interesting patterns, but I still doubt that it’s meant to be interpreted that way...

You forgot its other 2 factors:1 & 33. You can plot the bits as a 2d image in one other, final, pattern: 1 row of 33.

If you’re interpreting it as a repeating tile pattern you might as well be complete, and the 1x tile is a non-trivial solution since you can align it in 33 different ways relative to its neighbouring tiles. And it does make some interesting patterns, but I still doubt that it’s meant to be interpreted that way...

Well, the original source image was JPEG, but that in the left column ain’t it... they resampled both for their blog...

E.g. the real images, not the scaled-down ones, for the football player (Cato June) are:

2_original.jpg (677,662 bytes)
2_webp.png (164,910 bytes, in the WebP image... 877,967 bytes as a PNG)

Well, the original source image was JPEG, but that in the left column ain’t it... they resampled both for their blog...

E.g. the real images, not the scaled-down ones, for the football player (Cato June) are:

2_original.jpg (677,662 bytes)
2_webp.png (164,910 bytes, in the WebP image... 877,967 bytes as a PNG)

Maybe I should have said certain types of gradients. I was trying to put it in layman’s terms, though...

More specifically, it causes both ringing and blur. This, for example, is compressed all to hell to show the artifacts: http://ompldr.org/vNXAzbQ/Untitled.jpg

Check the originals... the lights are clearly visible in the JPEG original, but what’s mystifying (to me) is that for this image in particular the JPEG is much darker than the WebP version, particularly evident in the dark areas of the image. None of the other sample images have a corresponding brightness discrepancy. I actually think they might have brightened it and forgot to tell us... (and yes, I know about the possibility that the browser is doing funky things with the PNG colour profile – I’m using Firefox 3.6.9, though, and Windows Preview and GIMP both show the same thing)

(warning – they’re rather huge)
http://ompldr.org/vNXAzZA/7_original.jpg (3.5 MB)
http://ompldr.org/vNXAzZQ/7_webp.png (13 MB)

Check the originals... the lights are clearly visible in the JPEG original, but what’s mystifying (to me) is that for this image in particular the JPEG is much darker than the WebP version, particularly evident in the dark areas of the image. None of the other sample images have a corresponding brightness discrepancy. I actually think they might have brightened it and forgot to tell us... (and yes, I know about the possibility that the browser is doing funky things with the PNG colour profile – I’m using Firefox 3.6.9, though, and Windows Preview and GIMP both show the same thing)

(warning – they’re rather huge)
http://ompldr.org/vNXAzZA/7_original.jpg (3.5 MB)
http://ompldr.org/vNXAzZQ/7_webp.png (13 MB)

Actually, that was just the result of abs(JPEG - WebP), which isn’t really that good of a comparison since it doesn’t indicate whether the WebP image was darker or lighter than the original – just that it was different.

Here’s a better comparison: 50% gray + WebP - JPEG (and highly enhanced this time). In other words, if a colour channel value > 127, the WebP was brighter than the JPEG original for that channel of that pixel; conversely if < 127, the WebP image was darker than the JPEG. Or, more intuitively, the yellow fringe around the top indicates that WebP compression yellowed the image (ever so slightly... like I said, it’s highly enhanced).

http://ompldr.org/vNXAydw/webp_vs_jpeg_gray.png

Somebody moderated this overrated. I’m not sure why.

Maybe they thought I uploaded a black picture to be cute. I didn’t, but you’d probably have to tilt your LCD to notice that there’s anything there. Here... I’ll kick the levels way up so you can see the difference.
http://ompldr.org/vNXAyZw/webp_vs_jpeg_enhanced.png

I might as well add...

It had – a smoothing filter was applied to make the image easier on JPEG’s algorithm – and it saved another 15k or so. But here’s the non-smoothed version as well, weighing in at 105,798 bytes for a modest 84.4% reduction in size from the original...

http://ompldr.org/vNXAxcw/2_recompressed_b.jpg

(I saved the recompressed images at 55% JPEG quality – any lower than that it started showing noticeable banding in the blue background.)

apparently those are all generated from higher resolution source images

...which I downloaded. Here’s the difference between Cato June in JPEG and WebP, in full resolution, saved as a lossless PNG:
http://ompldr.org/vNXAxYQ/webp_vs_jpeg.png

Difference filter on JPEG vs. WebP

Feel free to download it and increase the gamma to actually try to see the difference.

Actually, gonna agree with this guy. Especially if you twiddle the compression/optimization levels with software that supports them, e.g. GIMP.

Original JPEG: 677,662 bytes
http://ompldr.org/vNXAxOA/2_original.jpg

Recompressed JPEG: 90,930 bytes (86.6% smaller)
http://ompldr.org/vNXAxOQ/2_recompressed.jpg

Is there even a difference? Of course there is. Is it significant enough that your average web user will be browsing Sports Illustrated dot com and say “wow these images look crappy”? Hell no.