About 30-40 years ago, a German publisher inserted ads in their (rather cheap)
paperback SciFi books. Those ads are (present tense - the books still exist) annoying as hell,
because they were adapted to the story: A right page would first look and read as if
it were still part of the story, but subtly insert stuff about the hero using the
product advertised (shavers, national bank bonds(!) etc.), and the following left page would be a full page ad.
Fortunately, this means that ripping out one sheet of paper got rid of the inserted ad.
I haven't seen this since, so apparently it wasn't worth the customer annoyance. I'd hate to
see this make a comeback though.
If I say that my site trusts domain1.com, but domain1.com isn't using this and ends up having all sorts of dodgy scripts they're passing along, would this block them, or would they count as coming from domain1.com?
Domain1 woudn't need to use this - this is a client-side security measure. If your site uses it and declares trusted third-parties, it's enough.
Also, what is "passing along" supposed to mean? Scripts (or any other stuff) would either come from domain1 or not. If not, it wouldn't be trusted.
If domain1 proxies scripts from other sources, this means they come from domain1, as far as HTTP is concerend - and they would be trusted.
The problem I see however is domain1 declaring additional trusted domains when delivering its scripts, thereby allowing for "cascaded domain trust", which
would pretty much defeat the new system. This can easily be prevented by not accepting additional trusted domains from elements that are third-party though.
On its reception, it was converted to NTSC [1. conversion]...
Yes. By pointing a TV camera at a monitor!
There was no other way to do real-time 10fps to 29.97fps conversion
The 16mm recording was technically created the same way - however, even in the late 1960s,
there were special devices available to do high-quality exposures on film from TV signals.
They didn't have to do any manual monitor-pointing for that. And as film has much higher
resolution and contrast than TV, especially at the time, this probably didn't reduce the
quality any further.
The main point is: The high-quality Apollo 11 footage didn't leave Australia. Worse, it didn't
even leave the room where the receiving equipment stood. And the tapes recording the raw streams
are gone.
While that might (or might not) be partly true, I can assure you that they wouldn't have been using a 16mm *film* camera to convert the pictures for live transmission(!)
1) I assure you this is more than partly true.
2) Of course not.
The 16mm camera was used on NASA's end (i.e. not in Australia), to record the stream parallel to broadcast after its scan conversion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program_missing_tapes does a decent job at describing that BTW.
...and then finally, for archival, this was stored by pointing a 16mm film camera at a monitor.
No, that was for transmission, the second step in the chain after reception. The Apollo 11 camera had 10fps, and
as there was no easy way to do real-time frame rate conversions in the 1960s, the solution was to point a camera at a display
at Honeysuckle Creek Station in Australia.
This filmed-from-a-display feed is the only source of Apollo 11 video we know today.
The lost tapes supposedly contain a direct recording of the 10fps video stream from the lander.
"We needed to wait until the second spacecraft was three decameters away before firing the main rocket engines, not three decimeters, but someone typed in in wrong and that's why we lost the second spacecraft"
neither deca (10) nor deci (1/10) are widely used - and the 1000^n prefixes are designed as to avoid those problems.
deca and deci are pronounced quite differently, despite their orthographical resemblence.
So the numbers used would be 30 meters vs. 0.3 meters. Not a problem.
So lets say I take my pay check and head off to the bank and when cashing it, get a roll of pennies. Further suppose
that one these pennies has some rare quality making it worth $100 to a collector... is that an extra $100 of Income?
If you go on and sell it for that price, it very probably is, yes.
So the waves aren't wet enough yet? Norway has strange oceans.
On the other hand, I think for the first time "inertial dampeners" is the right term to use...
(Yes, to damp is a verb too. Heavily underused. As is "dampers")
It is almost like asking "Is it an A- or a B+" or the musical types the whole sharp flat deal...
n-sharp and (n+1)-flat are only the same in some quite specific tunings. Admittedly, those are the most widely used
nowadays, but by no means the only ones. Have a look at musical tuning theories before you make fun of them.
Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)? I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.
Aladdin (1992)
The Emperor's New Groove (2000)
Lilo & Stitch (2002)
Treasure Planet (2002)
Bolt (2008)
The first three are rather anarchic and great fun, Treasure Planet is one of the very best "Treasure Island" movies adaptations in my opinion,
and Bolt is harmless, but quite entertaining.
True, there have been a number of (sometimes very) weak movies in between, especially in the last decade or so, but to claim that
Disney Animation is in general decline is just wrong.
... the Bundestag (Germany's equivalent of Parliament)...
What is that supposed to mean? That sounds as if it were some weird, not-really-a-parliament thing.
It is Germany's parliament. Or would you call the US Congress "the US equivalent of parliament"?
It has just a non-generic name (in another language even!). See Knesset (Israel), Diet (Japan), Sansad (India),...
Wouldn't the lander module have toasted the ground around it when it fired it's engines up to re-enter lunar orbit?
Not necessarily - the lander module's landing platform was left behind, and the ascension stage had only one rather weak
rocket motor. I think footprints close to the platform had a very good chance to be protected from the blast.
Also: Without atmosphere, no turbulence. Additional protection.
And my hardware-enabled H.264 decoding video card does better and I don't have to buy any extra codecs.
And the hardware decoding works on Linux with ffmpeg/mplayer as well through the VPDAU framework.
If you play your Linux superiority card, do it right.
1.) You mean VDPAU
2.) I wrote on Windows - the U in VDPAU stands for Unix.
It's a proprietary software vendor who is mad that Microsoft is obsoleting his company's products.
Have you ever used CoreAVC? This is the codec to use on Windows to play H.264 - its performance is unmatched
and allows for 1080p playback on some surprisingly weak hardware, where e.g. ffmpeg doesn't even come close.
And in its recent versions, it even (finally) makes use of CUDA in nVidia GPUs, lowering the CPU load by quite
a bit again. And it is absolutely decently priced.
I wonder when Firefox, Opera or Konqueror will have native support for Dirac.
For Gecko (which means Firefox & friends): As soon as libogg supports it, which is pretty much
now. However, it isn't part of the upstream stable libogg yet, so it will not ship with Firefox 3.5,
but very probably show up in the version after that.
Cheap (and older) ones do, yes. I seriously dooubt you can hear the >40kHz
switching fequency of current models. I sure can't, and I have excellent hearing.
Too late: Compact fluorescent lamps require about 20W for the same light output as a 100W incadescent.
And live longer too.
Yes, their light used to look shitty, but these times are over now as well - if you don't buy the cheapest
there are, the light out of fluorescent bulbs is perfectly fine. And LED "bulbs" may soon be there too.
Slashdot Mirror
About 30-40 years ago, a German publisher inserted ads in their (rather cheap)
paperback SciFi books. Those ads are (present tense - the books still exist) annoying as hell,
because they were adapted to the story: A right page would first look and read as if
it were still part of the story, but subtly insert stuff about the hero using the
product advertised (shavers, national bank bonds(!) etc.), and the following left page would be a full page ad.
Fortunately, this means that ripping out one sheet of paper got rid of the inserted ad.
I haven't seen this since, so apparently it wasn't worth the customer annoyance. I'd hate to
see this make a comeback though.
You can count my DNA will be *great*, as I wank atleast 4 times a day.
Hats off to those modding the above "informative"
I guess the other browsers will just ignore this unless of course they jump on board and implement it too.
Exactly. Also, it will rain tomorrow. Unless it doesn't.
If I say that my site trusts domain1.com, but domain1.com isn't using this and ends up having all sorts of dodgy scripts they're passing along, would this block them, or would they count as coming from domain1.com?
Domain1 woudn't need to use this - this is a client-side security measure. If your site uses it and declares trusted third-parties, it's enough.
Also, what is "passing along" supposed to mean? Scripts (or any other stuff) would either come from domain1 or not. If not, it wouldn't be trusted.
If domain1 proxies scripts from other sources, this means they come from domain1, as far as HTTP is concerend - and they would be trusted.
The problem I see however is domain1 declaring additional trusted domains when delivering its scripts, thereby allowing for "cascaded domain trust", which
would pretty much defeat the new system. This can easily be prevented by not accepting additional trusted domains from elements that are third-party though.
On its reception, it was converted to NTSC [1. conversion]...
Yes. By pointing a TV camera at a monitor!
There was no other way to do real-time 10fps to 29.97fps conversion
The 16mm recording was technically created the same way - however, even in the late 1960s,
there were special devices available to do high-quality exposures on film from TV signals.
They didn't have to do any manual monitor-pointing for that. And as film has much higher
resolution and contrast than TV, especially at the time, this probably didn't reduce the
quality any further.
The main point is: The high-quality Apollo 11 footage didn't leave Australia. Worse, it didn't
even leave the room where the receiving equipment stood. And the tapes recording the raw streams
are gone.
While that might (or might not) be partly true, I can assure you that they wouldn't have been using a 16mm *film* camera to convert the pictures for live transmission(!)
1) I assure you this is more than partly true.
2) Of course not.
The 16mm camera was used on NASA's end (i.e. not in Australia), to record the stream parallel to broadcast after its scan conversion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program_missing_tapes does a decent job at describing that BTW.
...and then finally, for archival, this was stored by pointing a 16mm film camera at a monitor.
No, that was for transmission, the second step in the chain after reception. The Apollo 11 camera had 10fps, and
as there was no easy way to do real-time frame rate conversions in the 1960s, the solution was to point a camera at a
display at Honeysuckle Creek Station in Australia.
This filmed-from-a-display feed is the only source of Apollo 11 video we know today.
The lost tapes supposedly contain a direct recording of the 10fps video stream from the lander.
"We needed to wait until the second spacecraft was three decameters away before firing the main rocket engines, not three decimeters, but someone typed in in wrong and that's why we lost the second spacecraft"
So the numbers used would be 30 meters vs. 0.3 meters. Not a problem.
...we have a US Navy destroyer tailing a North Korean freighter potentially carrying illegal missiles to a rouge military dictatorship...
Yeah, I too would much prefer them to go to pink democracies or chartreuse constitutional monarchies.
That's First Images of (Memories Being Made), and not First (Images of Memories) Being Made.
Languags can really be weird that way...
On the other hand, unambiguous titles have occasionally been seen in the wild.
So lets say I take my pay check and head off to the bank and when cashing it, get a roll of pennies. Further suppose
that one these pennies has some rare quality making it worth $100 to a collector... is that an extra $100 of Income?
If you go on and sell it for that price, it very probably is, yes.
...dampen the motion from waves...
So the waves aren't wet enough yet? Norway has strange oceans.
On the other hand, I think for the first time "inertial dampeners" is the right term to use...
(Yes, to damp is a verb too. Heavily underused. As is "dampers")
It is almost like asking "Is it an A- or a B+" or the musical types the whole sharp flat deal...
n-sharp and (n+1)-flat are only the same in some quite specific tunings. Admittedly, those are the most widely used
nowadays, but by no means the only ones. Have a look at musical tuning theories before you make fun of them.
Exists where? "Exists" and "we can make" are two different things.
"exists" here means "is something that can be made" - as opposed to "cannot possibly exist (due to $somelimitationofnature)"
Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)? I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.
Aladdin (1992)
The Emperor's New Groove (2000)
Lilo & Stitch (2002)
Treasure Planet (2002)
Bolt (2008)
The first three are rather anarchic and great fun, Treasure Planet is one of the very best "Treasure Island" movies adaptations in my opinion,
and Bolt is harmless, but quite entertaining.
True, there have been a number of (sometimes very) weak movies in between, especially in the last decade or so, but to claim that
Disney Animation is in general decline is just wrong.
... the Bundestag (Germany's equivalent of Parliament)...
What is that supposed to mean? That sounds as if it were some weird, not-really-a-parliament thing.
...
It is Germany's parliament. Or would you call the US Congress "the US equivalent of parliament"?
It has just a non-generic name (in another language even!). See Knesset (Israel), Diet (Japan), Sansad (India),
well, atleast it will be cheaper than SSS's
Yup, the thermal shield on Super-Sonic Sandwiches is made out of pure Unobtainium.
We really should start work on a replacement for that.
It's Firefox, not FireFox.
Wouldn't the lander module have toasted the ground around it when it fired it's engines up to re-enter lunar orbit?
Not necessarily - the lander module's landing platform was left behind, and the ascension stage had only one rather weak
rocket motor. I think footprints close to the platform had a very good chance to be protected from the blast.
Also: Without atmosphere, no turbulence. Additional protection.
And my hardware-enabled H.264 decoding video card does better and I don't have to buy any extra codecs.
And the hardware decoding works on Linux with ffmpeg/mplayer as well through the VPDAU framework.
If you play your Linux superiority card, do it right.
1.) You mean VDPAU
2.) I wrote on Windows - the U in VDPAU stands for Unix.
It's a proprietary software vendor who is mad that Microsoft is obsoleting his company's products.
Have you ever used CoreAVC? This is the codec to use on Windows to play H.264 - its performance is unmatched
and allows for 1080p playback on some surprisingly weak hardware, where e.g. ffmpeg doesn't even come close.
And in its recent versions, it even (finally) makes use of CUDA in nVidia GPUs, lowering the CPU load by quite
a bit again. And it is absolutely decently priced.
Also: Does Microsoft even ship a H.264 codec?
I wonder when Firefox, Opera or Konqueror will have native support for Dirac.
For Gecko (which means Firefox & friends): As soon as libogg supports it, which is pretty much
now. However, it isn't part of the upstream stable libogg yet, so it will not ship with Firefox 3.5,
but very probably show up in the version after that.
Compact florescents emit audible noise.
Cheap (and older) ones do, yes. I seriously dooubt you can hear the >40kHz
switching fequency of current models. I sure can't, and I have excellent hearing.
How about trying before complaining? The video preview only shows excerpts of the video it links to.
Too late: Compact fluorescent lamps require about 20W for the same light output as a 100W incadescent.
And live longer too.
Yes, their light used to look shitty, but these times are over now as well - if you don't buy the cheapest
there are, the light out of fluorescent bulbs is perfectly fine. And LED "bulbs" may soon be there too.