The other bane is running into business people who think they are far more important than the actual creators and who try to trick if not flat out steal it from the actual creators.
Unfortunately the approach for venture capital is "high stakes on good odds" -- you might lose a million, but you might make a hundred million.
Fuck that! All I EVER see out of VCs these days is "Hmm, You have a $100M Idea here, OK, I agree with that. I also see that you only need $750K to make it happen. and $250k to do the rest of the initial fund raising. Tell you what, Here's $250K, But I want you to pay the $25K upfront that it will cost me to do my due diligence, and I want 51% of the company, and I want you to assume all the risk, and I want your house as collateral just in case."
No one is willing to take ANY risk any more - unless it's with someone else's money.
Non-sexualized nudity with genitals not emphasized or even visible does not exactly qualify as porn. For instance, a painting of a mother bathing a small child is not kiddie porn.
Acttually some guy was busted for having pictures of his infant daughter bathing on his phone. (Was posted on/., but I'm too lazy to look it up.)
Um, you might want to take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... . Mrs. Vassilyev is said to have given birth to 69 whelps, and of course, there is Ismail Ibn Sharif who sired 860!
Unfortunately, people on this site that specializes in technology, don't actually believe that generational spaceships are possible. Either now or in all of our future timeframe.
I tried to make a similar argument about 2 months ago, and got nothing but grief for postulating such an idea.
Not true, there are many people who believe generational spaceships are possible, in the near term. The problem isn't the tech, the problem is the same for/all/ space projects.
Well, reason #1 would probably be a massive class action lawsuit that would destroy the coveted relationship that these companies have with their user base.
Class actions won't mean shit when there's enough {bribe} money on the other side. (Sony winning most of them for example. http://www.groklaw.net/article...)
And, based on consumer sales, not much of anythign will do anythign to these companies. All we can do as consumers is keep a ready supply of lube around.
If you ever have extended occupancy a computer geek, and 8 lbs of discretionary cargo, there will be a game server on the moon. Maybe a few more pounds if you need your own power source.
Http:\\OpenLuna.org will bring them there when they build their outpost. http:\\Keplershipyards.com is already planning on integrating "Recreational software" into the computers that they are building for OL to run the outpost and to integrate into the suit. Since the suits have VR and remote control consoles for the rovers, (using VR gloves and such) AR full-body COD anyone?
According to Stephen Braham This piece misinterprets the research. There's pretty much zero chance that Sag A* is a wormhole (and, given that I did my PhD on them, I'm biased to wanting wormholes)! The paper is about how you'd know if it was, and not on any evidence that Sag A* isn't a usual accretion-formed BH.
And - I'm just as surprised as anyone that this hit the front page. (Seriously?! Wow - I've only done that once before! that's COOL!)
OK, No, the customers aren't being ass-hats, No, they aren't trying to sell pictures, no, there is not a sripper pole/orgy/druggie bus, and - No, they could care less about selfies, but, if you allow selfies, you have to accept all photos. There will be drinking. Lots of drinking...
What they don't want is pictures taken of them, nor of the other passengers riding along with them, in a - comprimising position. They are willing to lose their own cameras, because they prize their passengers privacy (NOTE PAX, NOT Customer people do NOT pay to ride, it is strictly by invitation only!) and they consider it rude to ask for phones. Not like it matters when you can hide a camera in a button, pen, whatever... The reason they/want/ to keep their own cameras is for no other reason than if some drunken ass-hat douch-bad, Beiber wanna-be decides to do something criminal to someone else on the bus. No more, no less. they not only have no intention of using the footage for anything else, they don't even plan to review it, unless there is a reported incident, and they'll probably just hand it to the cops.
People will be asked to not take pictures, but their may be some very famouse people riding along with some very attractive (non-professional) other passengers, and - well, people will be people. There is a "Guido" on board, but by then it's too late.
We have tried single source, high intensity (250W NIR and 125W IR LEDs) to the point where it was starting to become visible, and it works, only in the immediate area of the LED cluster. There are indeed mirrors all over the bus, and a white light (RGB, I know) LASER show device, and a fogger, but that won't be enough.
One (several) of the comments suggested strobing and varying the LEDs, We'll try that next. It seems to make sense. We also like the idea of selectively targeting the CCDs, but - well honestly, I have no clue how. I know in theory how, and that it does work in movie theaters, and on the occasional boat, but it's above my skill set. I'm that good, but, in other areas. (I'm good, not God.) I'm checking out a link that was posted.
They understand that they won't get every camera, but they obviously want as many as possible.
And for the losers who say "No, it can't be done, and you're an idiot for asking!" - well, let me quote Capt. Tagon "Never tell me what *you* can't do as if it's something *nobody* can do."
For the rest of you who are actually trying to help, one nerd to another, Thank you.
You've tried ultra bright IR but you really need flickering ultra-bright IR strobing at different rates and levels. A solid IR just sets things up for a better photo. Providing the camera didn't have an IR filter and did photograph IR a flickering IR would cause differing light needs within the exposure window which the camera would be unlikely to adapt to.
If you are able to link the timing of the flickering in with your own cameras you'd be able to shut it off momentarily (electronically) and grab the photo.
I agree. This may be what we are looking for. We did use a single high intensity source, and what it took to bloom the CCD was - extreme. I'll play with several high intensity IR LEDs, fluctuating and strobing and see what happens. Thank you.
Anti camera tech that blocks the taking of images, but allows the taking of images by certain cameras, but you can't be required to do or wear anything special/different. So, basically, we need a non-existent cloaking technology that we can see through with our own cameras.
Dude, it is clear that you work for complete fucking idiots. Unless you are also a complete fucking idiot, (which I think you might be since you posted this on Slashdot) you need to find another job with a better employer. What will you do when they demand that the limos be driven by Yetis and lead along the road by unicorns?
Actually not. For example, There are several theater protection systems that use active lasers, looking for CCD, but that's not real practical here. Unless someone knows somethign I don't. Hence the reason I'm asking...
Right, The Rock Star is the owner. And, they would rather their own cameras didn't work, if that will prevent others from working. Confiscating them really isn't an option. (They're just too damn easy to conceal anyway.)
I think that's why they want to prevent pictures, to encourage this kind of behaviour.
Actually, yes. That is exactly why they want it. And yes, they only intend to use their own cameras if there is a criminal investication, and the disc cycles every four days, and the passengers know this.
At the end of the day, Windows is good for two things nowadays: Games and SolidWorks. ; )
Don't forget Adobe Creative suite. $ per operation, I would so rather run After Effects, or any of the high horsepower Creative suite under Windows. (And I would pay even more to get a Linux version.) the Apple hardware just plain costs too much!
Like 6 year old news? I was just about starting to think that none of the teams would even make it in time. They've already extended it twice.Now, Mind you, I really want it to succeed, and we are working with two of the teams, but - I'm just not seeing it happen - yet.
Slashdot Mirror
and, FWIW, I won't mod AC postings.
The story of my life.
The other bane is running into business people who think they are far more important than the actual creators and who try to trick if not flat out steal it from the actual creators.
The difference between billboard or magazine ads and software ads? Billboards and magazines can't directly write to your brain!
Yet...
(I loved Snow Crash!)
Ok, Because I have zero idea what Immodium does, (other than whet it is labelled for-) WTF? Why? What?
Unfortunately the approach for venture capital is "high stakes on good odds" -- you might lose a million, but you might make a hundred million.
Fuck that! All I EVER see out of VCs these days is "Hmm, You have a $100M Idea here, OK, I agree with that. I also see that you only need $750K to make it happen. and $250k to do the rest of the initial fund raising. Tell you what, Here's $250K, But I want you to pay the $25K upfront that it will cost me to do my due diligence, and I want 51% of the company, and I want you to assume all the risk, and I want your house as collateral just in case."
No one is willing to take ANY risk any more - unless it's with someone else's money.
Non-sexualized nudity with genitals not emphasized or even visible does not exactly qualify as porn. For instance, a painting of a mother bathing a small child is not kiddie porn.
Acttually some guy was busted for having pictures of his infant daughter bathing on his phone. (Was posted on /., but I'm too lazy to look it up.)
Um, you might want to take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... .
Mrs. Vassilyev is said to have given birth to 69 whelps, and of course, there is Ismail Ibn Sharif who sired 860!
I wish I could mod this "Oh! WTF!"
Unfortunately, people on this site that specializes in technology, don't actually believe that generational spaceships are possible. Either now or in all of our future timeframe.
I tried to make a similar argument about 2 months ago, and got nothing but grief for postulating such an idea.
Not true, there are many people who believe generational spaceships are possible, in the near term. The problem isn't the tech, the problem is the same for /all/ space projects.
Who's going to pay for it?
AOL-tier. On a +4 post. Is today the day that /v/ finally invades Slashdot?
OK, Will someone explain this to me?
Well, reason #1 would probably be a massive class action lawsuit that would destroy the coveted relationship that these companies have with their user base.
Class actions won't mean shit when there's enough {bribe} money on the other side. (Sony winning most of them for example. http://www.groklaw.net/article...)
And, based on consumer sales, not much of anythign will do anythign to these companies. All we can do as consumers is keep a ready supply of lube around.
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
This isn't the first time people have wrongly announced this either.
If you ever have extended occupancy a computer geek, and 8 lbs of discretionary cargo, there will be a game server on the moon. Maybe a few more pounds if you need your own power source.
Http:\\OpenLuna.org will bring them there when they build their outpost. http:\\Keplershipyards.com is already planning on integrating "Recreational software" into the computers that they are building for OL to run the outpost and to integrate into the suit. Since the suits have VR and remote control consoles for the rovers, (using VR gloves and such) AR full-body COD anyone?
According to Stephen Braham This piece misinterprets the research. There's pretty much zero chance that Sag A* is a wormhole (and, given that I did my PhD on them, I'm biased to wanting wormholes)! The paper is about how you'd know if it was, and not on any evidence that Sag A* isn't a usual accretion-formed BH.
No he hasn't Only about a third of the way there.
Difficult, but not impossible.
*sigh* ... *zip*
And if I didn't have a rule against up-modding ACs, this would have gotten a point...
LOL!
OK, Obviously I wasn't clear enough...
And - I'm just as surprised as anyone that this hit the front page. (Seriously?! Wow - I've only done that once before! that's COOL!)
OK, No, the customers aren't being ass-hats, No, they aren't trying to sell pictures, no, there is not a sripper pole/orgy/druggie bus, and - No, they could care less about selfies, but, if you allow selfies, you have to accept all photos. There will be drinking. Lots of drinking...
What they don't want is pictures taken of them, nor of the other passengers riding along with them, in a - comprimising position. They are willing to lose their own cameras, because they prize their passengers privacy (NOTE PAX, NOT Customer people do NOT pay to ride, it is strictly by invitation only!) and they consider it rude to ask for phones. Not like it matters when you can hide a camera in a button, pen, whatever... The reason they /want/ to keep their own cameras is for no other reason than if some drunken ass-hat douch-bad, Beiber wanna-be decides to do something criminal to someone else on the bus. No more, no less. they not only have no intention of using the footage for anything else, they don't even plan to review it, unless there is a reported incident, and they'll probably just hand it to the cops.
People will be asked to not take pictures, but their may be some very famouse people riding along with some very attractive (non-professional) other passengers, and - well, people will be people. There is a "Guido" on board, but by then it's too late.
We have tried single source, high intensity (250W NIR and 125W IR LEDs) to the point where it was starting to become visible, and it works, only in the immediate area of the LED cluster. There are indeed mirrors all over the bus, and a white light (RGB, I know) LASER show device, and a fogger, but that won't be enough.
One (several) of the comments suggested strobing and varying the LEDs, We'll try that next. It seems to make sense. We also like the idea of selectively targeting the CCDs, but - well honestly, I have no clue how. I know in theory how, and that it does work in movie theaters, and on the occasional boat, but it's above my skill set. I'm that good, but, in other areas. (I'm good, not God.) I'm checking out a link that was posted.
They understand that they won't get every camera, but they obviously want as many as possible.
And for the losers who say "No, it can't be done, and you're an idiot for asking!" - well, let me quote Capt. Tagon "Never tell me what *you* can't do as if it's something *nobody* can do."
For the rest of you who are actually trying to help, one nerd to another, Thank you.
You've tried ultra bright IR but you really need flickering ultra-bright IR strobing at different rates and levels. A solid IR just sets things up for a better photo. Providing the camera didn't have an IR filter and did photograph IR a flickering IR would cause differing light needs within the exposure window which the camera would be unlikely to adapt to.
If you are able to link the timing of the flickering in with your own cameras you'd be able to shut it off momentarily (electronically) and grab the photo.
I agree. This may be what we are looking for. We did use a single high intensity source, and what it took to bloom the CCD was - extreme. I'll play with several high intensity IR LEDs, fluctuating and strobing and see what happens. Thank you.
Anti camera tech that blocks the taking of images, but allows the taking of images by certain cameras, but you can't be required to do or wear anything special/different. So, basically, we need a non-existent cloaking technology that we can see through with our own cameras.
Dude, it is clear that you work for complete fucking idiots. Unless you are also a complete fucking idiot, (which I think you might be since you posted this on Slashdot) you need to find another job with a better employer. What will you do when they demand that the limos be driven by Yetis and lead along the road by unicorns?
Actually not. For example, There are several theater protection systems that use active lasers, looking for CCD, but that's not real practical here.
Unless someone knows somethign I don't. Hence the reason I'm asking...
Huh? Rock star is the owner. Duh.
Right, The Rock Star is the owner.
And, they would rather their own cameras didn't work, if that will prevent others from working. Confiscating them really isn't an option. (They're just too damn easy to conceal anyway.)
I think that's why they want to prevent pictures, to encourage this kind of behaviour.
Actually, yes. That is exactly why they want it. And yes, they only intend to use their own cameras if there is a criminal investication, and the disc cycles every four days, and the passengers know this.
At the end of the day, Windows is good for two things nowadays: Games and SolidWorks. ; )
Don't forget Adobe Creative suite. $ per operation, I would so rather run After Effects, or any of the high horsepower Creative suite under Windows. (And I would pay even more to get a Linux version.) the Apple hardware just plain costs too much!
Damn it. I logged in just hoping that I'd have mod points for this...
Yes, we need to simply WRITE THIS STUFF THE RIGHT WAY!
Like 6 year old news? I was just about starting to think that none of the teams would even make it in time. They've already extended it twice.Now, Mind you, I really want it to succeed, and we are working with two of the teams, but - I'm just not seeing it happen - yet.
Can someone please change the wording of the American national anthem ?
The one about "Land of the Free", "Home of the Brave", in more ways than one, no longer apply.
the Land of the Free-loaders and Home of the Slaves...