Huh, that's actually the first thing I thought when I saw the "slasher," but I gave up hope for such high-quality plot devices soon after. Maybe I'll have to give it another look.
It might be possible to make a very well-informed guess (as with some existing software that can "increase resolution" on human faces) but that's all it is, a guess. It would be impossible to recover the original image with any certainty.
It isn't the same for Hollywood movies. For example, I don't think anyone would argue that the movie Gigli is worthy of preservation. But 100 years from now, historians may look back on Internet archives to see how everyone is calling Gigli an awful piece-of-shit movie that uses minutes of their life that they can never get back, but they would not be able to view the movie themselves to appreciate it. Wouldn't that be a loss?
From your first sentence I thought you were going to point out that the problem with privacy is that you have to be a computer security expert to achieve it.
Vampire bats will already attack you if given the motive and opportunity. It's just that there are usually other animals closer by that are more convenient prey.
The other upside is that it will put a selective pressure in place for mosquitoes to avoid human settlements, which would be a win/win (mosquitoes win in the sense that they don't go extinct).
Oh please, they kill a million people a year right now, making them less of a population-limiter than cigarettes or KFC Double Downs.
There's also a catch-22 problem of poor Africans having more children in case some of them are killed by malaria (or AIDS, or warlords, plenty to choose from) so removing that threat might have the net effect of reducing population growth overall.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh, that's actually the first thing I thought when I saw the "slasher," but I gave up hope for such high-quality plot devices soon after. Maybe I'll have to give it another look.
Or...he could have just bought an HDR rig and saved himself a lot of work.
I think it's for people with...less legal tastes who get a rush knowing that whatever awful thing they're looking at really happened.
It might be possible to make a very well-informed guess (as with some existing software that can "increase resolution" on human faces) but that's all it is, a guess. It would be impossible to recover the original image with any certainty.
You will have only seen a great many shoops if you hang out on 4chan.
I know it's unnecessary, but look at it as "futureproofing" for organizations that normally destroy drives instead.
I'm sure governments everywhere will scramble to implement this revenue-reducing technology.
LOL mod parent up! XD
It isn't the same for Hollywood movies. For example, I don't think anyone would argue that the movie Gigli is worthy of preservation. But 100 years from now, historians may look back on Internet archives to see how everyone is calling Gigli an awful piece-of-shit movie that uses minutes of their life that they can never get back, but they would not be able to view the movie themselves to appreciate it. Wouldn't that be a loss?
Similarly to the way Bono counts "1,2,3,14!" gives you a hint about his intelligence...
Nah I'm kidding. Any of his lyrics could have told you that.
This film is the only movie ever to make me physically ill (except maybe ones that cause motion sickness).
I've heard people say the same about Human Centipede. I haven't seen it yet (and don't really plan to).
From your first sentence I thought you were going to point out that the problem with privacy is that you have to be a computer security expert to achieve it.
Whoops, double post. I hit submit, it fails with "resource is not valid, try again" but it went through anyway.
He doesn't claim to [be] the journo
Wrong:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/assange_journalist/
He doesn't claim to [be] the journo
Wrong:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/assange_journalist/
+1 for this.
I can see the Chevy mosquitoes now, like little mosquito Hulks dwarfing the competition in size.
Vampire bats will already attack you if given the motive and opportunity. It's just that there are usually other animals closer by that are more convenient prey.
The other upside is that it will put a selective pressure in place for mosquitoes to avoid human settlements, which would be a win/win (mosquitoes win in the sense that they don't go extinct).
Yes how can we forget the extinction of the beaver and the entire Neornithes subclass.
Fuck my morning math. Fuck it so hard. That's roughly one 9/11 every 30 hours.
A few? Mosquitoes kill over a million people per year. That's around 330 9/11s per year, or roughly one 9/11 every 3 hours, due to mosquitoes.
Oh please, they kill a million people a year right now, making them less of a population-limiter than cigarettes or KFC Double Downs.
There's also a catch-22 problem of poor Africans having more children in case some of them are killed by malaria (or AIDS, or warlords, plenty to choose from) so removing that threat might have the net effect of reducing population growth overall.
ill-tempered sea bass?
The only collateral damage would be some species being kept alive artificially by humans, like pandas and galapagos tortoises.