Slashdot Mirror

I suspect the city fathers have no idea the water map looks that dicklike. Another Utah Breast Picture.

I love dogs. On the subject of wilderness, however, Dogs are extremely destructive. Dogs and wilderness do not mix. When you take them into the wilderness they chase all of the wild life away. They pollute streams and intensify the destruction of the wilderness.

Pets are more of a consumer product than they are an introduction to nature.

I've spent most of my life without a dog. Coco showed up on the porch a year and a half ago. I take her on regular walks in the mountains. It is freightening the amount of destruction I see being done by dogs.

In a discussion on the value of pets. Yes, kids and dogs are a great combination. However, pets are about the domination of animals. Taking Coco on trips into the mountains, I am now starting to see the extent to which dogs dominate recreation and the affect that they have on the diminishing nature around us.

In other words, you should only have a dog if you really, really want to have a dog. You should only have a dog if you are wanting a pet to be a primary focus of your recreation time.

You should budget two grand a year for dog care and food, and plan to spend a great deal of time with it.

Coco showed up on my porch because a family with two sons bought a puppy as a consumer product, and found out that dogs are a big hassle.

I agree that people are having more fun with their digital cameras than ever before.

In discussing fake photos we need to separate the intent to deceive from simple adjustments or artistic statements.

My point is that in order for a person to effectively deceive others, they must first have a way to claim legitimacy for a photo. Creating a program that "mathematically" verifies a photo opens up the door to deceit. You can't argue with a mathematically verified photo.

Now then, if we were to get into a question of what percent of photos were "faked" my guess is that a larger percent of photos taken in the first years of photography were faked than are today. At the height of the Kodak Instamatic years, there was probably a low in the number of faked photos. The reason for my assertions is that the first photographers really had to know their art to take pictures. Today, however, people are taking billions of photos a year. Before I dropped my camera, I had taken over 7500 pictures with it.

I concede that the number of pictures faked for the purpose of manipulating others has risen sharply.

A system of mathematically verify faked photos will help detect amateurish attempts at fakes, but have the converse affect of making truly sophisticated fakes even worse by creating a way to tag the legitimacy to the faked photo.

Information like this would be great for following architectural trends. Unfortunately, groups with the cash to do things like this generally aren't interested in the fuzzy cultural notions of idealists.

Whenever I am on the road, I end up taking photos of town I pass through. Of course, since 9/11, when I show up in a town and take a picture of their bridge anymore, I get a bunch of heavily armed yahoos thinking I am some type of ter'ist plotting an attack on the heart of the homeland.

The INEEL museum in the middle of Idaho has a public display of an engine for a nuclear powered airplane. The idea was that the plane would drag the engine behind it on a long cable; so the pilots wouldn't die of radiation sickness. The plane would never land.

Bandwidth is just a matter of migrating bottle necks. As local access continues to build, the places that excess capacity today will be the bottle necks to tomorrow.

If a company digs a big expensive hole for fiber, they better be smart enough to be planting more than current capacity demands. It will be expensive to dig the hole again. When that hole becomes a bottleneck it will be extremely expensive to upgrade.

BTW, the fact that companies digging expensive holes for fiber planted more than current needs that maybe there might be a little bit of hope for American companies after all. We will find in a few years years their foresight was probably not enought.

protophoto

First off, I should not have used the words "Great Deal." According to my logs, Google reads a little under 100MB from my sites each month. That's like a dollar each month.

I am not unhappy with Google. I am just pointing out a contradiction. My argument is that in some cases Google will incur a bandwidth cost on a site, and have the affect of taking traffic from the site.

In the Google paradigm there are two types of sites. There are expert and content sites. An expert site is a site with a bunch of links. Content sites have articles.

Google is the ultimate expert site. It aggregates other expert sites. As a result, people use Google rather than the independent expert site.

Remember an expert site is a link site. The goal of the expert site to direct traffic...not to deliver content. Google hits the expert site with a bandwidth charge. They use the information from the expert site to take traffic from the expert site.

BTW, this is precisely the reason that Google prohibits you from indexing the Google Site. They do not want you to use the information they gathered to take traffic from Google.

I am not saying this is bad, just pointing out contradictions...It's a Google eat goto world out there.

protophoto

If they kill us three times over...Why, we will just kill them forty times over. That will show 'em.

protophoto