No: she'll only ever have one birthday, like anyone else. She'll have an anniversary of her birthday almost once every four years (occasionally only once every eight years), however... just like anyone else born on a Feb. 29th.
The point was that this camera is supposedly going to be able to detect and fix blemishes automatically with no assistance from the user, similar to automatic face detection and red-eye removal.
Some diagrams would have been nice, though (as Kiffer suggested). And how in the world does that even work well enough? Wouldn't you have to be on edge with a planet's orbit to see it crossing its star?
If they really wanted people to be happier with their pictures, they would build in some basic rules to the camera to warn people when the contrast is low, when the face is being lit poorly.
Yeah, people would really love that...
"No, you can't take any pictures of your drunken self and buddies in this poorly-lit smoke-filled nightclub, you moron." "You are not in a well-lit studio. You will probably look like shit. Do you still want to take a picture (Y/N)?"
The camera's supposed to take the picture regardless of circumstances, and then make the best of it. It's not a studio portrait. The lighting won't be bright enough, or the right clour temperature... you won't have bright lights and an indirect flash (actually that's a nice trick, if you have an index card or slip of paper handy), etc... the camera's just supposed to do as best possible under the conditions.
However, it is not a successful troll unless you get the other party angry.
Anger is not the only measure of troll success. Nor even the greatest, I'd say.
I have to point out that only someone who has never suffered any sort of real oppression could possibly hold the attitude you do.
Personally? Nope, I can't say that I have. But if I wanted I'm sure I could find half a dozen or so fragile identities that needed coddling based on some weird or bad stuff that happened a long time ago somewhere else to people who I'm related to or similar to. Frankly the mere idea of it sounds tiresome.
Sorry, no. Not buying it. Would you call someone a kyke? Would you call someone a nigger, a spick, or a pollack?
Not in real life. But online?
Well, still probably not, but that's more because I just don't think calling somebody something they aren't is a particularly effective way of insulting them. Neither is calling them something that there's nothing wrong with them being.
Anyway, getting offended over being called something you're not is silly, and getting offended over someone else getting called something you are is likewise silly. And getting offended over somebody being called something that neither of you are is downright pointless and a waste of time.
Also, while your trolling abilities are extraordinary, I'm afraid 19thNervousBreakdown had beaten you in that respect. You ought feel no shame there, however. I mean it as a complement in every way possible.
Your average file system won't like it very much if you just "reduce the disk capacity"
They didn't care back in the days of the 720K floppy (I can't say I remember any earlier than that). I don't see why they should care now.
having some spare blocks around to take the place of failed one would make a lot of sense if the whole drive shouldn't be unusable once the first failed block appears.
Ah, that brings back some memories... back in the day, if the first block (block 0) of a floppy failed, the entire disk was unusable. But that was also before wear-leveling ensured that "block 0" can be located anywhere at all in the flash memory.
It doesn't offend me. I'm just intending to point out that it's terribly easy to find something to be offended at, if you're trying. Conversely, as you said it: nearly impossible to offend the right people without offending anyone else, to which I'd add, particularly hard if anyone else was actively seeking to be offended.
And really, worrying about offending the wrong people is a rather childish reason not to use an insult that otherwise seemed like a perfectly good insult to direct at a person you wanted to offend.
Not to mention when Bob's wife, hearing a strange noise, wakes up in the middle of the night, and not feeling Bob next to her she gets worried and picks up the phone to dial 911... and instead of a dial tone she hears Bob talking to some other woman from the extension in the kitchen...
money is not fairly distributed and needs to be taken from those who have too much regardless of how hard they work for it and given to those who have none regardless of how little they work for it
...I'm pretty sure that was Jesus.
I think you misremembered that parable... the master took all the money away from the guy who had the least and gave it to the guy who had already received the most.
So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.
So the principle is somewhat more like "money needs to be taken from those who are lazy regardless of how little they have and given to the people who work hard for it regardless of how much money they have already."
Slashdot Mirror
Not very helpful - I'll already know if there's not much light and if I'm taking a picture anyway there probably wasn't much I could do about it.
I think what he was complaining about is that 50 nanometres is not the same as 10 metres (5 x 10-8). Copy-and-paste didn't preserve the superscript.
No: she'll only ever have one birthday, like anyone else. She'll have an anniversary of her birthday almost once every four years (occasionally only once every eight years), however... just like anyone else born on a Feb. 29th.
The point was that this camera is supposedly going to be able to detect and fix blemishes automatically with no assistance from the user, similar to automatic face detection and red-eye removal.
Or read the manual, and use the self-timer to avoid the need for the MySpace-angle or flash-in-the-bathroom-mirror (ugh).
The self-timer isn't going to help anyone's need for the MySpace-angle...
I thought you were going to say toes.
Well, I didn't... or I'd forgotten, at least.
Some diagrams would have been nice, though (as Kiffer suggested). And how in the world does that even work well enough? Wouldn't you have to be on edge with a planet's orbit to see it crossing its star?
What good is the article without pictures? (Well, an artist's conception doesn't really count.)
If they really wanted people to be happier with their pictures, they would build in some basic rules to the camera to warn people when the contrast is low, when the face is being lit poorly.
Yeah, people would really love that...
"No, you can't take any pictures of your drunken self and buddies in this poorly-lit smoke-filled nightclub, you moron."
"You are not in a well-lit studio. You will probably look like shit. Do you still want to take a picture (Y/N)?"
The camera's supposed to take the picture regardless of circumstances, and then make the best of it. It's not a studio portrait. The lighting won't be bright enough, or the right clour temperature... you won't have bright lights and an indirect flash (actually that's a nice trick, if you have an index card or slip of paper handy), etc... the camera's just supposed to do as best possible under the conditions.
However, it is not a successful troll unless you get the other party angry.
Anger is not the only measure of troll success. Nor even the greatest, I'd say.
I have to point out that only someone who has never suffered any sort of real oppression could possibly hold the attitude you do.
Personally? Nope, I can't say that I have. But if I wanted I'm sure I could find half a dozen or so fragile identities that needed coddling based on some weird or bad stuff that happened a long time ago somewhere else to people who I'm related to or similar to. Frankly the mere idea of it sounds tiresome.
Sorry, no. Not buying it. Would you call someone a kyke? Would you call someone a nigger, a spick, or a pollack?
Not in real life. But online?
Well, still probably not, but that's more because I just don't think calling somebody something they aren't is a particularly effective way of insulting them. Neither is calling them something that there's nothing wrong with them being.
Anyway, getting offended over being called something you're not is silly, and getting offended over someone else getting called something you are is likewise silly. And getting offended over somebody being called something that neither of you are is downright pointless and a waste of time.
Also, while your trolling abilities are extraordinary, I'm afraid 19thNervousBreakdown had beaten you in that respect. You ought feel no shame there, however. I mean it as a complement in every way possible.
He didn't say renting it at the video store, he said "using windows to find naked chicks".
Your average file system won't like it very much if you just "reduce the disk capacity"
They didn't care back in the days of the 720K floppy (I can't say I remember any earlier than that). I don't see why they should care now.
having some spare blocks around to take the place of failed one would make a lot of sense if the whole drive shouldn't be unusable once the first failed block appears.
Ah, that brings back some memories... back in the day, if the first block (block 0) of a floppy failed, the entire disk was unusable. But that was also before wear-leveling ensured that "block 0" can be located anywhere at all in the flash memory.
Whoosh.
It doesn't offend me. I'm just intending to point out that it's terribly easy to find something to be offended at, if you're trying. Conversely, as you said it: nearly impossible to offend the right people without offending anyone else, to which I'd add, particularly hard if anyone else was actively seeking to be offended.
And really, worrying about offending the wrong people is a rather childish reason not to use an insult that otherwise seemed like a perfectly good insult to direct at a person you wanted to offend.
Not to mention when Bob's wife, hearing a strange noise, wakes up in the middle of the night, and not feeling Bob next to her she gets worried and picks up the phone to dial 911... and instead of a dial tone she hears Bob talking to some other woman from the extension in the kitchen...
"Fuckstained cuntflap" is not a phrase that applies to a specific group of people. It does not connote a history of violence and oppression.
It applies to promiscuous women. It brings up memories of adulteresses being stoned to death. I'm afraid I'm still not clear on the difference.
"Homosexuals are wonderful things. I wouldn't want to be one though."
So what's the difference?
Try finding another word or phrase to use as an insult, perhaps "Fuckstained cuntflap" which I find fun to use because it is so graphic.
Implying there's something wrong with fuckstained cuntflaps?
money is not fairly distributed and needs to be taken from those who have too much regardless of how hard they work for it and given to those who have none regardless of how little they work for it
...I'm pretty sure that was Jesus.
I think you misremembered that parable... the master took all the money away from the guy who had the least and gave it to the guy who had already received the most.
Mt. 25:24-30
So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.
So the principle is somewhat more like "money needs to be taken from those who are lazy regardless of how little they have and given to the people who work hard for it regardless of how much money they have already."
FTP does not allow anyone to execute files on your computer remotely...
And even if the Faraday cage is grounded, you've only made the entire "ground" into your antenna.
If you're looking at this from the perspective of "can't stop the signal"... well, you CAN'T stop the signal. Not with a Faraday cage.
Cutting a body through it's center of mass doesn't still doesn't necessarily leave equal masses on either side of the (hyper-)plane.
You're right. I don't know why I had that stuck in my head.
Crap. Never mind, you're right. Cutting through an object's center of mass doesn't necessarily result in two equal masses.
Ok, going way to the beginning, if you cut through the center of mass, you usually aren't cutting into two equal volumes or masses.
What? By definition if you cut through the center of mass you're cutting into two equal masses.
I don't believe that there is any sense in which things are "right" or "wrong" mathematically, except for logical truth of statements.
"There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem." - Slashdot footer quotation.