No, they can't. In order to get a good image of someone's iris, particularly without being noticed, you'd need a long (at least 400mm) macro (true macro, 1:1 reproduction) lens with very, very little sperhical abberation or chromatic abberation, and very sharp to boot. And, likely, a buttload of light shining into the person's eye. Since you can't get a lens like that, and it'd be monstrously huge anyway, it's not a problem.
This's something that's always annoyed me about documentaries: people don't get to see them. They show in a very small number of theaters -- I don't care how fantastic it is, I'm not going to travel far out of my way to see one -- and the only people who buy DVDs of the things are the converted Choir, as it were. They're not distributed far enough to make any real impression, to do what they are, by nature, created to do: educate people.
Documentary filmmakers need to find a way to reach a wider audience. I'd suggest putting them up for DL in limited resolution, but with high quality sound, so that the Documentary stops being an artsy wank-fest and actually becomes a useful tool.
Eeh, that's still destruction of property. My method's simply more dramatic, and cathartic.;)
Consider if you lived next-door to this person, and could hear the noise -all day-. That whining would drive me absolutely nuts within the span of a day, and would probably keep me from sleeping. If you fed this into a prison cell, it'd be classified as torture.
2 wrongs do not always make a right, but they often do. The thing is just what you said: it needs to be a proportionate response. In this case, I think that taking a hammer to a device designed solely to annoy all of those within a certain demographic within and beyond its range is an entirely proportionate response.
Megamek's excellent; I just wish they'd solve some of the stablity and connectivity problems when you're running larger games. I've run through five-player, 15000-BP-each games with a couple of laptops and a desktop, in -much- less time that it'd've taken if we'd set up the boards and minis ourselves.
On the other hand, you've got to consider that movie and photographic equipment has become much cheaper and much better over the years. Today you can get 'prosumer' equipment for a few hundred bucks that would rival technology of a decade or so ago, and far surpass the quality of fifty years ago. Of course, our standards have risen since that time, but, at the same time, it means that it -is- possible to create movies quite a bit more cheaply than it was back then. Audio mixing and video editing can be done on a $1500 computer with some extra bits that, twenty or so years ago, would have required a hundred times more money and a panel truck's worth of equipment.
I'm no great expert on filmmaking technology, but I assume that it has run along similar lines to photographic technology -- which I would call myself an expert on. In the early 1900s you could get a Kodak Brownie box camera for a few bucks -- today's disposeable 35mm film cameras are much cheaper (still a few bucks, but considering inflation, this is probably 90% less in 'real money' than then,) and, for a comparable price (about a hundred bucks), you can get an SLR 35mm camera -- with a kit lens with optics that photographers of the time would have killed for -- with a built-in exposure meter with various, intelligent metering modes, high-speed drives, and various other bits. The features on consumer and prosumer cameras today exceed the features on professional cameras 20 years ago -- and they do it better, in a smaller package.
The biggest cost, AFAIK, associated with mainstream films is the overhead which has very little to do with actually creating the work. Marketing, legal stuff, hiring big-name actors, getting your film into cinemas, etc, etc, etc.
The other case depends on the situation. You do have to inform people that your property is under survalance, which they guy in NH may or may not have done (usually with a sign)
First off, this doesn't count as 'surveillance' -- that implies some kind of covert operation. This is a guy obviously coming out of his house and snapping a picture. In the US, you have the right to take pictures of anything going on on public property, or on your own property, or which is plainly visible from public property, where there are no expectations of privacy. You can use a 1,000 mm lens to snap pictures of a neighbor's kids playing down the block without them ever knowing. You can't, however, use the same long-assed lens to snap a picture of your neighbor, naked, through their bathroom window -- generally.
Even in the case of fixed CCTV equipment, most states don't require anything to be posted unless audio is being recorded.
I think that it's pretty plain that people would expect the owner/inhabitants of a property to personally surveil the area.;)
Have you ever looked at our budget? If a researcher can find a possible use that's related to war in any way, well, that's a chance to get more funding.
There's a difference between model rockets that use D Engines and model rockets that use... considerably bigger ones. The only difference between the latter and a small guided rocket suitable for military use is the lack of guidance system and payload -- both of which can be arranged with proper knowledge.
Not that I agree with the feds on this, I think it's rediculous, but it -is- possible.
It's easier than that. Iodine crystals and ammonia, filter, dry. The explosive goes from almost-completely-not-explosive when wet to "look at it funny and it'll go off" when dry.
United Nuclear's been working on a dual-fuel hydrogen/gas conversion kit for a while, now, and they've got it running, though it's not quite ready for the public yet. The actual work needed to convert is minimal, and the thing comes with its own generator station -- either plug-in or solar. Of course, it's pricey, but...*shrugs*
Not all NE dealers are a scam. For example, B&H and Adorama are, and I say this with tongue in cheek because they're run and staffed primarily with jews, kosher.
Actually, B&H is one of the best benchmarks to see if you're dealing with a site that's bullshit or not. If it's got a price that's significantly better than B&H's, it's probably a scam.
That being said, I wouldn't buy from any site in Brooklyn.
...So, they're gonna charge the same card which you just disputed the charge on? Yeah, that's gonna work. I imagine that any credit card company would see right through that, once you call to dispute the new charge...
If you hire a builder to build a house, the house is yours. If you hire a wedding photographer to take your picture in your setting, your clothes, and your event, the photos should be yours.
That's not necessarily true. Many architects retain the copyright to the design of a building.
If you want the copyrights to images, then you can get them -- you just have to buy the rights from the photographer. This costs more.
Well, I'm constitutionally obligated to take exception to this, even though I understand where you're coming from.
The taking of a photograph involves selecting and controlling a host of variables with nearly infinite granularity. (I'll use a film-based solution since it cuts out Photoshop and such.) The Photographer chooses the film that he's using, which will affect things such as color balance and pallette, granularity, contrast, and sharpness. The ISO of the film also affects his choice of shutter speeds, which will limit the circumstances under which he will be able to capture the type of image he wants.
The Photographer chooses a shutter speed in order to either freeze motion or to show it through motion blur. Now, does he show the motion by letting the subject blur, or does he pan with the subject while taking the picture to keep the subject sharp and blur the background?
The photographer chooses an aperature, which directly affects the depth of field of the subject. Do you want everything tack-sharp, or do you wish to isolate one particular element by keeping that sharp and letting everything else fall out of focus? In doing this, the photographer has to keep in consideration the size of the depth of field, and the plane of focus.
The photographer chooses a focal length, the choice of which can vastly affect the composition of the picture, the DoF, and a number of other things, even the way a face appears.
The photographer chooses where to place the elements of the image within the frame, which can have a profound effect on the final feel of the image.
The photographer chooses whether or not to use filters to modify the light entering the lens, and these filters can have dramatic effects -- a simple polarizing filter can change the look of an image immensely.
The photographer chooses what lighting to use, and this includes the control of a vast number of variables. When using natural light, one's options are more limited, but this is still a major consideration. Do you sidelight your subjects? Frontlight them? Backlight them? Light them from above or below? Use a combination? Take the picture in shade or hard sun? It all depends. The control of lighting is one of the most frustrating and critical elements of a photographer's job.
Finally, the photographer chooses the exact moment to capture. Being off by 1/16 of a second can change an image from something remarkable to something blah.
Printing the image can be a simple thing, or an extremely complex one in the case of black and white fine-art prints done in a darkroom. That is another subject entirely, far too complex to get into, and it is entirely an art.
This is what you pay for in a good photographer, and why it's an art. It may look to you like the photographer is just clicking a button, but the vast number of choices that aggregate, including some which are entirely stylistic, are what makes it an art. The photographer processes all of this data, makes his selections, often in only a few seconds, frames the picture, and takes the picture. Well, this is all assuming that you're using a professional photographer and not someone clicking away on automatic mode or something.
The thing is, the photographer does just what you said -- he made a unique image. Technical skills will give you a decent photograph, but the ways that you choose to apply these -- there are literally an infinite number of ways to capture the same scene -- are what makes it an art.
Frankly, programming is less of an art in comparison, and more of the 'service industry' job you say photography is: all that is is the application of a series of algorythms in order to solve a defined problem. The photographer is using a set of algorythms, too, but these are much fuzzier, and there is almost never one (or even a couple of) "best" solution. And the development of a software application is practically -never- from scratch any more. Common libraries, programming tools, APIs, and such make the
Under a 'work for hire' contract, the photographer is paid for the image and most or all rights associated with it -- it becomes the client's image in its entirety. Unless you're dealing with amateurs or starving students, however, this means that the client will be paying a premium for that. There are variations on this, where a photographer may retain the right to use the image for self-promotion. It all depends on the contract and how it is negotiated.
In stock photgraphy, the photographer takes pictures, and then the client decides to license a particular picture out for one specific use. The price will depend on various aspects of the usage. The photographer retains all rights to the image.
In most types of wedding photography, the photographer charges the client for his time, and then again for prints of the images. It is unusual to see the client buy any rights to the use of the image -- they only get the 'fair use' rights that come along with owning the print. However, the ways in which the photographer may use the images may be limited by the release that the client signs.
Prints tend to be cheapest. Limited-use rights tend to be more expensive, and total image ownership tends to be the most expensive.
In reality, any time a photographer gets paid for his work, instances will be a little different, and the photographer and the client may retain or withold certain rights.
It is indeed possible for a passive piece of software to commit tresspass. By not informing the user of the full range of capabilities of the program, particularly those that the user would not expect from the nature of the software, you're running a trojan, not a legitimate piece of software. (Don't give me crap about how a user should 'expect' to be screwed in this circumstance; it doesn't work that way.) A rootkit like this essentially is akin to a person asking you over to their house for a while, and, while they're there, they take your keys and make copies. Then you tell them you want them to leave and never come by again, but they don't give you back the keys -- or tell you that they were made. This is certainly conspiracy to commit tresspass. Oh, and furthermore, if you try and change your locks, the plumbing in your house stops working. Whoops!
Sthe program be so poorly designed (or maliciously designed) as to interfere with the functioning of the computer, -particularly- when the user decides to (quite legally) cease to be bound by the licensing agreement (by removing the software necessary to access the content,) then you're committing a crime against chattel -- essentially a kind of vandalism.
Shit, you need a hard drive? Boyo, lemme tell you about these things they made once back in the day called dumb terminals. They were nice little boxes you plonked down somewhere and wired into a network, and holyshitdamn if you couldn't do everything you ever wanted to do on them, even though all they were were hardware telnet devices. All that huge space you needed for the actual computer -- the massive racks for the system itself, the tape drives, the massive 50-megabyte washing-machine of a hard-drive that would walk itself across the floor diring intensive read/write, the big 'ol air conditioning system -- all that stayed wherever the hell it was, conveniently not in your home, and you ust had this neat little box with the blinkinlights in it. All you needed was a 110 outlet -- 110, not 220 or something exotic! -- and a way to plug it into your network.
Fancy-shamzy gits with their hard drives actually -in- their computers. Pfaw.
You've never gotten a caustic burn, have you? Naw, you're just repeating what you've heard.
Lemme tell you, you can feel the burn from alkali materials. It doesn't "just eat through your skin." First, it makes your skin slippery as it interacts with the upper, dead layers of your skin. Then, as it starts to get into the living layers, it starts to itch. That's about as far as has happened to me, but after it starts to itch, it starts to burn. Then you've probably got some real damage.
Slashdot Mirror
"I can't take that out, it's a stress-bearing TV antenna!"
Dude, you didn't watch to the end, did you? ;)
No, they can't. In order to get a good image of someone's iris, particularly without being noticed, you'd need a long (at least 400mm) macro (true macro, 1:1 reproduction) lens with very, very little sperhical abberation or chromatic abberation, and very sharp to boot. And, likely, a buttload of light shining into the person's eye. Since you can't get a lens like that, and it'd be monstrously huge anyway, it's not a problem.
This's something that's always annoyed me about documentaries: people don't get to see them. They show in a very small number of theaters -- I don't care how fantastic it is, I'm not going to travel far out of my way to see one -- and the only people who buy DVDs of the things are the converted Choir, as it were. They're not distributed far enough to make any real impression, to do what they are, by nature, created to do: educate people.
Documentary filmmakers need to find a way to reach a wider audience. I'd suggest putting them up for DL in limited resolution, but with high quality sound, so that the Documentary stops being an artsy wank-fest and actually becomes a useful tool.
Don't forget that cells are the original nanotechnology. ;)
Eeh, that's still destruction of property. My method's simply more dramatic, and cathartic. ;)
Consider if you lived next-door to this person, and could hear the noise -all day-. That whining would drive me absolutely nuts within the span of a day, and would probably keep me from sleeping. If you fed this into a prison cell, it'd be classified as torture.
So it's his right to disturb the peace 24/7? Here's a hint -- sounds carry.
2 wrongs do not always make a right, but they often do. The thing is just what you said: it needs to be a proportionate response. In this case, I think that taking a hammer to a device designed solely to annoy all of those within a certain demographic within and beyond its range is an entirely proportionate response.
Megamek's excellent; I just wish they'd solve some of the stablity and connectivity problems when you're running larger games. I've run through five-player, 15000-BP-each games with a couple of laptops and a desktop, in -much- less time that it'd've taken if we'd set up the boards and minis ourselves.
I've had several friends in law enforcement, most of them in the NYCPD, and none of them have been like this.
On the other hand, you've got to consider that movie and photographic equipment has become much cheaper and much better over the years. Today you can get 'prosumer' equipment for a few hundred bucks that would rival technology of a decade or so ago, and far surpass the quality of fifty years ago. Of course, our standards have risen since that time, but, at the same time, it means that it -is- possible to create movies quite a bit more cheaply than it was back then. Audio mixing and video editing can be done on a $1500 computer with some extra bits that, twenty or so years ago, would have required a hundred times more money and a panel truck's worth of equipment.
I'm no great expert on filmmaking technology, but I assume that it has run along similar lines to photographic technology -- which I would call myself an expert on. In the early 1900s you could get a Kodak Brownie box camera for a few bucks -- today's disposeable 35mm film cameras are much cheaper (still a few bucks, but considering inflation, this is probably 90% less in 'real money' than then,) and, for a comparable price (about a hundred bucks), you can get an SLR 35mm camera -- with a kit lens with optics that photographers of the time would have killed for -- with a built-in exposure meter with various, intelligent metering modes, high-speed drives, and various other bits. The features on consumer and prosumer cameras today exceed the features on professional cameras 20 years ago -- and they do it better, in a smaller package.
The biggest cost, AFAIK, associated with mainstream films is the overhead which has very little to do with actually creating the work. Marketing, legal stuff, hiring big-name actors, getting your film into cinemas, etc, etc, etc.
The other case depends on the situation. You do have to inform people that your property is under survalance, which they guy in NH may or may not have done (usually with a sign)
;)
First off, this doesn't count as 'surveillance' -- that implies some kind of covert operation. This is a guy obviously coming out of his house and snapping a picture. In the US, you have the right to take pictures of anything going on on public property, or on your own property, or which is plainly visible from public property, where there are no expectations of privacy. You can use a 1,000 mm lens to snap pictures of a neighbor's kids playing down the block without them ever knowing. You can't, however, use the same long-assed lens to snap a picture of your neighbor, naked, through their bathroom window -- generally.
Even in the case of fixed CCTV equipment, most states don't require anything to be posted unless audio is being recorded.
I think that it's pretty plain that people would expect the owner/inhabitants of a property to personally surveil the area.
Patents by government agencies automatically go into the public domain.
Have you ever looked at our budget? If a researcher can find a possible use that's related to war in any way, well, that's a chance to get more funding.
There's a difference between model rockets that use D Engines and model rockets that use ... considerably bigger ones. The only difference between the latter and a small guided rocket suitable for military use is the lack of guidance system and payload -- both of which can be arranged with proper knowledge.
Not that I agree with the feds on this, I think it's rediculous, but it -is- possible.
It's easier than that. Iodine crystals and ammonia, filter, dry. The explosive goes from almost-completely-not-explosive when wet to "look at it funny and it'll go off" when dry.
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/
United Nuclear's been working on a dual-fuel hydrogen/gas conversion kit for a while, now, and they've got it running, though it's not quite ready for the public yet. The actual work needed to convert is minimal, and the thing comes with its own generator station -- either plug-in or solar. Of course, it's pricey, but...*shrugs*
Not all NE dealers are a scam. For example, B&H and Adorama are, and I say this with tongue in cheek because they're run and staffed primarily with jews, kosher.
Actually, B&H is one of the best benchmarks to see if you're dealing with a site that's bullshit or not. If it's got a price that's significantly better than B&H's, it's probably a scam.
That being said, I wouldn't buy from any site in Brooklyn.
...So, they're gonna charge the same card which you just disputed the charge on? Yeah, that's gonna work. I imagine that any credit card company would see right through that, once you call to dispute the new charge ...
If you hire a builder to build a house, the house is yours. If you hire a wedding photographer to take your picture in your setting, your clothes, and your event, the photos should be yours.
That's not necessarily true. Many architects retain the copyright to the design of a building.
If you want the copyrights to images, then you can get them -- you just have to buy the rights from the photographer. This costs more.
Well, I'm constitutionally obligated to take exception to this, even though I understand where you're coming from.
The taking of a photograph involves selecting and controlling a host of variables with nearly infinite granularity. (I'll use a film-based solution since it cuts out Photoshop and such.) The Photographer chooses the film that he's using, which will affect things such as color balance and pallette, granularity, contrast, and sharpness. The ISO of the film also affects his choice of shutter speeds, which will limit the circumstances under which he will be able to capture the type of image he wants.
The Photographer chooses a shutter speed in order to either freeze motion or to show it through motion blur. Now, does he show the motion by letting the subject blur, or does he pan with the subject while taking the picture to keep the subject sharp and blur the background?
The photographer chooses an aperature, which directly affects the depth of field of the subject. Do you want everything tack-sharp, or do you wish to isolate one particular element by keeping that sharp and letting everything else fall out of focus? In doing this, the photographer has to keep in consideration the size of the depth of field, and the plane of focus.
The photographer chooses a focal length, the choice of which can vastly affect the composition of the picture, the DoF, and a number of other things, even the way a face appears.
The photographer chooses where to place the elements of the image within the frame, which can have a profound effect on the final feel of the image.
The photographer chooses whether or not to use filters to modify the light entering the lens, and these filters can have dramatic effects -- a simple polarizing filter can change the look of an image immensely.
The photographer chooses what lighting to use, and this includes the control of a vast number of variables. When using natural light, one's options are more limited, but this is still a major consideration. Do you sidelight your subjects? Frontlight them? Backlight them? Light them from above or below? Use a combination? Take the picture in shade or hard sun? It all depends. The control of lighting is one of the most frustrating and critical elements of a photographer's job.
Finally, the photographer chooses the exact moment to capture. Being off by 1/16 of a second can change an image from something remarkable to something blah.
Printing the image can be a simple thing, or an extremely complex one in the case of black and white fine-art prints done in a darkroom. That is another subject entirely, far too complex to get into, and it is entirely an art.
This is what you pay for in a good photographer, and why it's an art. It may look to you like the photographer is just clicking a button, but the vast number of choices that aggregate, including some which are entirely stylistic, are what makes it an art. The photographer processes all of this data, makes his selections, often in only a few seconds, frames the picture, and takes the picture. Well, this is all assuming that you're using a professional photographer and not someone clicking away on automatic mode or something.
The thing is, the photographer does just what you said -- he made a unique image. Technical skills will give you a decent photograph, but the ways that you choose to apply these -- there are literally an infinite number of ways to capture the same scene -- are what makes it an art.
Frankly, programming is less of an art in comparison, and more of the 'service industry' job you say photography is: all that is is the application of a series of algorythms in order to solve a defined problem. The photographer is using a set of algorythms, too, but these are much fuzzier, and there is almost never one (or even a couple of) "best" solution. And the development of a software application is practically -never- from scratch any more. Common libraries, programming tools, APIs, and such make the
That's not quite true.
Under a 'work for hire' contract, the photographer is paid for the image and most or all rights associated with it -- it becomes the client's image in its entirety. Unless you're dealing with amateurs or starving students, however, this means that the client will be paying a premium for that. There are variations on this, where a photographer may retain the right to use the image for self-promotion. It all depends on the contract and how it is negotiated.
In stock photgraphy, the photographer takes pictures, and then the client decides to license a particular picture out for one specific use. The price will depend on various aspects of the usage. The photographer retains all rights to the image.
In most types of wedding photography, the photographer charges the client for his time, and then again for prints of the images. It is unusual to see the client buy any rights to the use of the image -- they only get the 'fair use' rights that come along with owning the print. However, the ways in which the photographer may use the images may be limited by the release that the client signs.
Prints tend to be cheapest. Limited-use rights tend to be more expensive, and total image ownership tends to be the most expensive.
In reality, any time a photographer gets paid for his work, instances will be a little different, and the photographer and the client may retain or withold certain rights.
Unfortunately, you're wrong.
It is indeed possible for a passive piece of software to commit tresspass. By not informing the user of the full range of capabilities of the program, particularly those that the user would not expect from the nature of the software, you're running a trojan, not a legitimate piece of software. (Don't give me crap about how a user should 'expect' to be screwed in this circumstance; it doesn't work that way.) A rootkit like this essentially is akin to a person asking you over to their house for a while, and, while they're there, they take your keys and make copies. Then you tell them you want them to leave and never come by again, but they don't give you back the keys -- or tell you that they were made. This is certainly conspiracy to commit tresspass. Oh, and furthermore, if you try and change your locks, the plumbing in your house stops working. Whoops!
Sthe program be so poorly designed (or maliciously designed) as to interfere with the functioning of the computer, -particularly- when the user decides to (quite legally) cease to be bound by the licensing agreement (by removing the software necessary to access the content,) then you're committing a crime against chattel -- essentially a kind of vandalism.
IANAL
Shit, you need a hard drive? Boyo, lemme tell you about these things they made once back in the day called dumb terminals. They were nice little boxes you plonked down somewhere and wired into a network, and holyshitdamn if you couldn't do everything you ever wanted to do on them, even though all they were were hardware telnet devices. All that huge space you needed for the actual computer -- the massive racks for the system itself, the tape drives, the massive 50-megabyte washing-machine of a hard-drive that would walk itself across the floor diring intensive read/write, the big 'ol air conditioning system -- all that stayed wherever the hell it was, conveniently not in your home, and you ust had this neat little box with the blinkinlights in it. All you needed was a 110 outlet -- 110, not 220 or something exotic! -- and a way to plug it into your network.
Fancy-shamzy gits with their hard drives actually -in- their computers. Pfaw.
You've never gotten a caustic burn, have you? Naw, you're just repeating what you've heard.
Lemme tell you, you can feel the burn from alkali materials. It doesn't "just eat through your skin." First, it makes your skin slippery as it interacts with the upper, dead layers of your skin. Then, as it starts to get into the living layers, it starts to itch. That's about as far as has happened to me, but after it starts to itch, it starts to burn. Then you've probably got some real damage.