Yeah, all this is starting to make me wonder, that if the theaters provided at least one movie with open captioning ( meaning that it had the captions/subtitles at the bottom ) and OPENLY advertised it and explained its good perks, if more people would go and enjoy it. Right now, movie theaters dont openly advertise open captioning so I'm pretty sure a large percent of the population doesnt know about it.. And I've seen large hordes of people go to foreign films and they dont have a problem with reading the subtitles and its openly advertised that it has subtitles so, makes me wonder what would happen if htey DID openly advertise it
True, I've used the system, Disney uses this system for a lot of stuff in their parks. Alas its also quite an annoying system since if there's a person sitting in back of you, it will more than likely block the reflection so you have to like move around and get in a good position which is pretty goddamn rare.. since it also more than likely annoys the hell out of the person behind you and they more than likely dont understand the system so you're pretty much fighting with the person behind you..
Its a cool system tho, but I'd prefer the subtitles to be ON the movie itself so that there's less of a chance that I'd miss something, and I've talked with a lot of hearing people that they actually LIKE to see the subtitles because some movies are so loud that you cant hear people talking and they get to see what they said because of the subtitles, and it helps older people who cant hear that well anymore to boot..
:-) Yeah, and also they've got subtitles to boot. Some movie theaters also have what is called "Open captioned" movies where they put the subtitles on a few select movies so we can go watch 'em
try breaking your eardrums, then you cant hear diddly.. and its cheaper than buying these 'quiet' solutions!
I can say myself, I've been deaf since I was born ( I was born deaf ) so I can say that its the easiest solution since I cant hear diddly so all of my computers are supposedly "quiet" for me! Soundproof padding for my room? Nah! dont need it!:-)
and not to mention the fact that they must be buying their phones or getting their phones from Nokia in some way, so that means Nokia must be at least getting some profit or money out of this in some way so I dont see how this hurts Nokia in some way, except the fact that they're selling it cheaper than Nokia is..
Gee.. just one more step closer to barcoding people.. Kidproof? thats a barcode.. only 10 dollars a month and you have a network of phones that when in use by anybody will scan barcodes in the vicnity of the phone and will help triangulate barcoded inviduals for the location database? Lost your kid? no problem..
Here's the link to the slashdot story linking to the article about the Tampa superbowl face recognization system victim: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/08/202624 7&mode=thread"... Now can you imagine what could happen if the cellphone recognization system became widespread? I wonder what the failure rate would be.. probably enough to claim a few victims
What the heck? This is an insane idea, its just giving away everybody's right to privacy, if you're in a cafe reading a book and there's a cellphone with this technology.. you just lost your right to privacy when the info is transmitted..
Remember what happened to that guy who they tested the superbowl mug shot system on? remember the hell he went through? what the hell do you think would happen to YOU if somebody got into the mugshot system and started fuddling with it?!
I think I'm going ot have to start wearing one of those cell disabling systems on my person to disable any cellphones in a radius that can take my mugshot or whatever other stupid things they put in cellphones!
The problem with that is, they need a way to make sure that nobody is interfering with the blocks that are being processed, they dont need people cheating and so on, and they need a way to validate the blocks.. thats why they have their own cache's and so on
After hearing/SEEING how much slashdot costs, and knowing that I'd like to keep reading slashdot, I decided to change my opinion from waiting until the BFA's become annoying and just to pay the subscription because I want to SUPPORT slashdot.. hell I dont care about the AD's. I dont block 'em but I also can IGNORE the ones I dont want to see.. (THose Thinkgeek ones rock!)
But Slashdot folks do go through a bit trying to make sure that the ads are nonintrusive in that they're not popups and so on.. now THOSE would make you want to run away wouldnt that? and they're not using them STILL even with the subscription thing.. so you have to give them some credit in knowing HOW far to go and NOT going over the line.. so why not support them? 5 bucks isnt that much to pay..
Actually, if you lose it or it gets stolen, you can call up the speedpass place and report it as stolen and the ID inside the speedpass you had will be rendered invalid and you can get a new one and so on..
Wot? I already thought those parental advisories that have been around telling kids to "Not talk to strangers".. those ads have been around for like centuries.. I'm pretty sure it means to NOT shake hands either!
Heh, user puts on speedpass watch and forgets he/she's wearing it and at a visit to a speedpass supported gas station, walks a wee bit too close to the pumps...
FREE GASOLINE! just not for YOU!
Cant imagine the MULTIPLE ways this watch could get abused.. it hooks up to your creditcard so hell, I'd rather have my speedpass on a seperate thing to make SURE nothing gets charged to it by accident!
Just what the parents need! an electric leash for the children! Imagine.. you're at disneyland and your parents tell you.. "Ok honey.. we're going to go relax.. here you go.. keep in touch with us" and then every 5 minutes they tell the kid to beam their location PRONTO to them.. so they know EXACTLY how far their scrawny ass is!
"Hey! Get away from that ride! you're too short for that ride!"
I have a few domains registered.. and I've also gotten spammed in the form that is being discussed, its a pain in the ass, I provide the correct info so that I can be informed in case any problems arise.. but to have my info used for spamming purposes kinda pisses me off and makes me wonder if I should have just put incorrect info and put an email address that goes to a spam-box that gets checked occasionally.. I wonder if people ACTUALLY just put in fake info just to avoid spam ( I'm sure people do this. ) and inasmuch probably missed out on some info ( I have gotten some comments from people about some domains I host that I thought were valuable so I was happy to have my email on the whois record.. )
Seems that spam is kind of making good info go to shit.. since people do NOT want to get spammed so htey put fake info.. kind of a shame since if they did not use it for spam, it'd be a nice viable database to use for contact info..
Down with the spammers! why the hell cant we sue 'em? they're shoving it down our throats, lets go shove it back down THEIRS!
The GA tech column had an link to a picture of the wired article about it, I dug into Wired and found the text so it's more readable.. the link is: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.03/eword.html ?pg=6
Medical imaging... hmm... shooter games.. medical imaging.. hmm sounds nice.. makes the games more REALISTIC! and probably has enough horsepower to render it in real life color too.. ooh!
Heck.. now you can go to a wallpaper store and say.. I want the geek wallpaper and they'll probably pull out a coupla rolls of this for ya to use! and heck it'll even do SOMETHING too!
Moderation points: Funny: +1
Apache AND IIS are good..
on
Apache 2.0 vs. IIS
·
· Score: 5, Informative
You have to admit that both IIS and Apache are both good webservers, its just that IIS gets a lot of flak for having holes in it that admins were not quick to patch, but at the same time Microsoft wasnt too quick on telling admins to patch it OR published it that broadly.. BUT IIS to some people is easier to use, so hence the easiness facto makes it attractive to a lot of people..
Apache on the other hand is also a good webserver, its been tested pretty throughly and doesnt seem to have that many holes, ( I cant say it does or doesnt because I havent looked ) but its also pretty intuitive to use for people that use Unix, so until the Unix population grows bigger than the windows population, IIS is going to be a tad more popular among that crowd..
I applaud microsoft for moving it out of the mainstream windows, it creates less of a hole to fix, and it decreases the risk of having another CodeRed type of thing happen again where users dont know that their computer is doing something.. but yeah, microsoft is tryign to make more money off it too.. this shouldnt surprise anybody
One weird thing that I saw, I was looking up the mobo and some of the stats on the motherboard say that it supports up to 1.2ghz cpu's and yet they're trying to put a 1.4ghz cpu into it?
No.. its just showing how Linux is spreading into the various devices.. You're never going to catch microsoft windows in any cameras yet Linux got its way into a camera.. hence its cool factor
Wouldnt mind using this to make my own home-brewed Matrix movies..
Kid jumping off roof with blankie thinking he's going to be ok.. you get to get every angle of that by running around him with the camera:-)
Would be nice to be able to take a lot of shots ( and I mean helluva lot of shots ) of meteor showers then you'd have a pretty good chance of grabbing a good shot..
there shouldnt be any problem sharing these taped shows over the 'net, since its within fair use to share it, so why is it limited only to replay ppl? if you're allowed to share shows you've taped on VHS and so on, you should be able to share shows you've taped using replay and tivo and so on.. since htey're in a format that can be played on the computer so its generally readable by anybody with a decent computer and space.. why isnt there more of a central place to share these shows? I would assume that this would be legal and practical.. and it would enable a lot of people to enjoy and find shows they've missed!
[T] he leader of the Nazi atomic bomb program, Werner Heisenberg, revealed its existence in September 1941 in a meeting in Copenhagen with a scientist who later became part of the Manhattan Project, the Allied effort to produce the bomb, according to secret documents cited in a London newspaper yesterday.
But contrary to several historical accounts of the meeting and major themes of an award-winning play, "Copenhagen," Heisenberg never expressed moral qualms about building a bomb for Hitler or hinted that he might be willing to sabotage the project, the documents reveal.
Some of the new information about the documents -- especially a letter that Niels Bohr, the scientist with whom Heisenberg met, wrote but never sent -- was reported yesterday by The Times of London, in an article citing Dr. Finn Aaserud, director of the Niels Bohr Archive in Copenhagen.
Dr. Aaserud is one of the few people outside the Bohr family who have seen the letter, which may be the only way to learn what happened at a meeting that is one of history's enduring mysteries. Bohr died in 1962, and Heisenberg died in 1976; both were Nobel laureates and considered among the greatest physicists.
"Essentially, the letter shows that he told Bohr that it was possible that the war would be won with atomic weapons, indicating that he was involved in such work," Dr. Aaserud said.
The only other living person outside the Bohr family known to have read the letter is Dr. Gerald Holton, an emeritus professor of physics and the history of science at Harvard. Dr. Holton declined yesterday to describe the letter fully, citing confidentiality agreements with the Bohr family. But he said that "Dr. Aaserud's report about some of its content is quite coherent with what we know" from other sources, including statements by one of Bohr's sons, the physicist Aage Bohr.
Dr. Holton said, "It is significant that Dr. Aaserud does not mention that any moral scruples or intention to sabotage the bomb project were reasons for Heisenberg's visit to Bohr."
Historians and scientists have argued for decades over why Heisenberg never succeeded in building an atomic bomb for Hitler. But the journalist Thomas Powers, author of the 1993 book "Heisenberg's War: The Secret History of the German Bomb," has argued that Heisenberg sabotaged the project.
In Mr. Powers's view, Heisenberg went to Copenhagen to make a deal with Bohr: The Germans would not develop the bomb if Allied scientists did not, either. The play "Copenhagen," by Michael Frayn, was inspired by Mr. Powers's book.
That view of Heisenberg has always generated skepticism among some historians. The new information is likely to solidify a less favorable view, that Heisenberg simply failed despite his best efforts, said David Rhodes, the author of a history of the Manhattan Project, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" (1986).
"This letter confirms what I think was always pretty clear in the record, and that is that Heisenberg was not making some deal with Bohr," Mr. Rhodes said. "He was trying to find out what Bohr knew. He was trying to do a little espionage."
Dr. Jeremy Bernstein, a theoretical physicist and author of "Hitler's Uranium Club," a 2001 book on secret recordings of members of the German bomb program, said the letter appeared to support his own criticism of Heisenberg's motives.
"This is exactly what Aage Bohr has been saying all along," Dr. Bernstein said.
Mr. Powers did not respond to messages seeking comment left on his answering machine yesterday.
Dr. Holton also shed new light on why Bohr suddenly cut off the meeting and why it destroyed what had been Bohr's lifelong friendship with Heisenberg. Though some have attributed Bohr's reaction to anger, another explanation is more likely, Dr. Holton said.
"The first thing that would come to mind is not anger but deep fright," Dr. Holton said of Bohr's reaction to learning of a Nazi bomb program. "He understood what that would mean for civilization."
Many historians have praised the historical studies that Mr. Frayn undertook before writing the play. Still, in contrast to the complex Heisenberg of the play, the physicist in reality may have been easier to understand, Dr. Bernstein said.
Mr. Frayn "wants to see both sides of the story," Dr. Bernstein said, "and there's some stories where there's only one side. This may be one of them."
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, all this is starting to make me wonder, that if the theaters provided at least one movie with open captioning ( meaning that it had the captions/subtitles at the bottom ) and OPENLY advertised it and explained its good perks, if more people would go and enjoy it. Right now, movie theaters dont openly advertise open captioning so I'm pretty sure a large percent of the population doesnt know about it.. And I've seen large hordes of people go to foreign films and they dont have a problem with reading the subtitles and its openly advertised that it has subtitles so, makes me wonder what would happen if htey DID openly advertise it
True, I've used the system, Disney uses this system for a lot of stuff in their parks. Alas its also quite an annoying system since if there's a person sitting in back of you, it will more than likely block the reflection so you have to like move around and get in a good position which is pretty goddamn rare.. since it also more than likely annoys the hell out of the person behind you and they more than likely dont understand the system so you're pretty much fighting with the person behind you..
Its a cool system tho, but I'd prefer the subtitles to be ON the movie itself so that there's less of a chance that I'd miss something, and I've talked with a lot of hearing people that they actually LIKE to see the subtitles because some movies are so loud that you cant hear people talking and they get to see what they said because of the subtitles, and it helps older people who cant hear that well anymore to boot..
:-) Yeah, and also they've got subtitles to boot. Some movie theaters also have what is called "Open captioned" movies where they put the subtitles on a few select movies so we can go watch 'em
try breaking your eardrums, then you cant hear diddly.. and its cheaper than buying these 'quiet' solutions!
:-)
I can say myself, I've been deaf since I was born ( I was born deaf ) so I can say that its the easiest solution since I cant hear diddly so all of my computers are supposedly "quiet" for me! Soundproof padding for my room? Nah! dont need it!
and not to mention the fact that they must be buying their phones or getting their phones from Nokia in some way, so that means Nokia must be at least getting some profit or money out of this in some way so I dont see how this hurts Nokia in some way, except the fact that they're selling it cheaper than Nokia is..
Gee.. just one more step closer to barcoding people.. Kidproof? thats a barcode.. only 10 dollars a month and you have a network of phones that when in use by anybody will scan barcodes in the vicnity of the phone and will help triangulate barcoded inviduals for the location database? Lost your kid? no problem..
Here's the link to the slashdot story linking to the article about the Tampa superbowl face recognization system victim: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/08/202624 7&mode=thread" ... Now can you imagine what could happen if the cellphone recognization system became widespread? I wonder what the failure rate would be.. probably enough to claim a few victims
What the heck? This is an insane idea, its just giving away everybody's right to privacy, if you're in a cafe reading a book and there's a cellphone with this technology.. you just lost your right to privacy when the info is transmitted..
Remember what happened to that guy who they tested the superbowl mug shot system on? remember the hell he went through? what the hell do you think would happen to YOU if somebody got into the mugshot system and started fuddling with it?!
I think I'm going ot have to start wearing one of those cell disabling systems on my person to disable any cellphones in a radius that can take my mugshot or whatever other stupid things they put in cellphones!
The problem with that is, they need a way to make sure that nobody is interfering with the blocks that are being processed, they dont need people cheating and so on, and they need a way to validate the blocks .. thats why they have their own cache's and so on
1.5 million a month
Hemos said: 1.5 million a YEAR
After hearing/SEEING how much slashdot costs, and knowing that I'd like to keep reading slashdot, I decided to change my opinion from waiting until the BFA's become annoying and just to pay the subscription because I want to SUPPORT slashdot.. hell I dont care about the AD's. I dont block 'em but I also can IGNORE the ones I dont want to see.. (THose Thinkgeek ones rock!)
But Slashdot folks do go through a bit trying to make sure that the ads are nonintrusive in that they're not popups and so on.. now THOSE would make you want to run away wouldnt that? and they're not using them STILL even with the subscription thing.. so you have to give them some credit in knowing HOW far to go and NOT going over the line.. so why not support them? 5 bucks isnt that much to pay..
Actually, if you lose it or it gets stolen, you can call up the speedpass place and report it as stolen and the ID inside the speedpass you had will be rendered invalid and you can get a new one and so on..
Wot? I already thought those parental advisories that have been around telling kids to "Not talk to strangers".. those ads have been around for like centuries.. I'm pretty sure it means to NOT shake hands either!
Heh, user puts on speedpass watch and forgets he/she's wearing it and at a visit to a speedpass supported gas station, walks a wee bit too close to the pumps...
FREE GASOLINE! just not for YOU!
Cant imagine the MULTIPLE ways this watch could get abused.. it hooks up to your creditcard so hell, I'd rather have my speedpass on a seperate thing to make SURE nothing gets charged to it by accident!
Just what the parents need! an electric leash for the children! Imagine.. you're at disneyland and your parents tell you.. "Ok honey.. we're going to go relax.. here you go.. keep in touch with us" and then every 5 minutes they tell the kid to beam their location PRONTO to them.. so they know EXACTLY how far their scrawny ass is!
"Hey! Get away from that ride! you're too short for that ride!"
I have a few domains registered.. and I've also gotten spammed in the form that is being discussed, its a pain in the ass, I provide the correct info so that I can be informed in case any problems arise.. but to have my info used for spamming purposes kinda pisses me off and makes me wonder if I should have just put incorrect info and put an email address that goes to a spam-box that gets checked occasionally.. I wonder if people ACTUALLY just put in fake info just to avoid spam ( I'm sure people do this. ) and inasmuch probably missed out on some info ( I have gotten some comments from people about some domains I host that I thought were valuable so I was happy to have my email on the whois record.. )
Seems that spam is kind of making good info go to shit.. since people do NOT want to get spammed so htey put fake info.. kind of a shame since if they did not use it for spam, it'd be a nice viable database to use for contact info..
Down with the spammers! why the hell cant we sue 'em? they're shoving it down our throats, lets go shove it back down THEIRS!
The GA tech column had an link to a picture of the wired article about it, I dug into Wired and found the text so it's more readable.. the link is: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.03/eword.html ?pg=6
Medical imaging... hmm... shooter games.. medical imaging.. hmm sounds nice.. makes the games more REALISTIC! and probably has enough horsepower to render it in real life color too.. ooh!
Heck.. now you can go to a wallpaper store and say.. I want the geek wallpaper and they'll probably pull out a coupla rolls of this for ya to use! and heck it'll even do SOMETHING too!
Moderation points: Funny: +1
You have to admit that both IIS and Apache are both good webservers, its just that IIS gets a lot of flak for having holes in it that admins were not quick to patch, but at the same time Microsoft wasnt too quick on telling admins to patch it OR published it that broadly.. BUT IIS to some people is easier to use, so hence the easiness facto makes it attractive to a lot of people..
Apache on the other hand is also a good webserver, its been tested pretty throughly and doesnt seem to have that many holes, ( I cant say it does or doesnt because I havent looked ) but its also pretty intuitive to use for people that use Unix, so until the Unix population grows bigger than the windows population, IIS is going to be a tad more popular among that crowd..
I applaud microsoft for moving it out of the mainstream windows, it creates less of a hole to fix, and it decreases the risk of having another CodeRed type of thing happen again where users dont know that their computer is doing something.. but yeah, microsoft is tryign to make more money off it too.. this shouldnt surprise anybody
One weird thing that I saw, I was looking up the mobo and some of the stats on the motherboard say that it supports up to 1.2ghz cpu's and yet they're trying to put a 1.4ghz cpu into it?
No.. its just showing how Linux is spreading into the various devices.. You're never going to catch microsoft windows in any cameras yet Linux got its way into a camera.. hence its cool factor
Wouldnt mind using this to make my own home-brewed Matrix movies..
:-)
Kid jumping off roof with blankie thinking he's going to be ok.. you get to get every angle of that by running around him with the camera
Would be nice to be able to take a lot of shots ( and I mean helluva lot of shots ) of meteor showers then you'd have a pretty good chance of grabbing a good shot..
there shouldnt be any problem sharing these taped shows over the 'net, since its within fair use to share it, so why is it limited only to replay ppl? if you're allowed to share shows you've taped on VHS and so on, you should be able to share shows you've taped using replay and tivo and so on.. since htey're in a format that can be played on the computer so its generally readable by anybody with a decent computer and space.. why isnt there more of a central place to share these shows? I would assume that this would be legal and practical.. and it would enable a lot of people to enjoy and find shows they've missed!
Details of Nazis' A-Bomb Program Surface
By JAMES GLANZ
[T] he leader of the Nazi atomic bomb program, Werner Heisenberg, revealed its existence in September 1941 in a meeting in Copenhagen with a scientist who later became part of the Manhattan Project, the Allied effort to produce the bomb, according to secret documents cited in a London newspaper yesterday.
But contrary to several historical accounts of the meeting and major themes of an award-winning play, "Copenhagen," Heisenberg never expressed moral qualms about building a bomb for Hitler or hinted that he might be willing to sabotage the project, the documents reveal.
Some of the new information about the documents -- especially a letter that Niels Bohr, the scientist with whom Heisenberg met, wrote but never sent -- was reported yesterday by The Times of London, in an article citing Dr. Finn Aaserud, director of the Niels Bohr Archive in Copenhagen.
Dr. Aaserud is one of the few people outside the Bohr family who have seen the letter, which may be the only way to learn what happened at a meeting that is one of history's enduring mysteries. Bohr died in 1962, and Heisenberg died in 1976; both were Nobel laureates and considered among the greatest physicists.
"Essentially, the letter shows that he told Bohr that it was possible that the war would be won with atomic weapons, indicating that he was involved in such work," Dr. Aaserud said.
The only other living person outside the Bohr family known to have read the letter is Dr. Gerald Holton, an emeritus professor of physics and the history of science at Harvard. Dr. Holton declined yesterday to describe the letter fully, citing confidentiality agreements with the Bohr family. But he said that "Dr. Aaserud's report about some of its content is quite coherent with what we know" from other sources, including statements by one of Bohr's sons, the physicist Aage Bohr.
Dr. Holton said, "It is significant that Dr. Aaserud does not mention that any moral scruples or intention to sabotage the bomb project were reasons for Heisenberg's visit to Bohr."
Historians and scientists have argued for decades over why Heisenberg never succeeded in building an atomic bomb for Hitler. But the journalist Thomas Powers, author of the 1993 book "Heisenberg's War: The Secret History of the German Bomb," has argued that Heisenberg sabotaged the project.
In Mr. Powers's view, Heisenberg went to Copenhagen to make a deal with Bohr: The Germans would not develop the bomb if Allied scientists did not, either. The play "Copenhagen," by Michael Frayn, was inspired by Mr. Powers's book.
That view of Heisenberg has always generated skepticism among some historians. The new information is likely to solidify a less favorable view, that Heisenberg simply failed despite his best efforts, said David Rhodes, the author of a history of the Manhattan Project, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" (1986).
"This letter confirms what I think was always pretty clear in the record, and that is that Heisenberg was not making some deal with Bohr," Mr. Rhodes said. "He was trying to find out what Bohr knew. He was trying to do a little espionage."
Dr. Jeremy Bernstein, a theoretical physicist and author of "Hitler's Uranium Club," a 2001 book on secret recordings of members of the German bomb program, said the letter appeared to support his own criticism of Heisenberg's motives.
"This is exactly what Aage Bohr has been saying all along," Dr. Bernstein said.
Mr. Powers did not respond to messages seeking comment left on his answering machine yesterday.
Dr. Holton also shed new light on why Bohr suddenly cut off the meeting and why it destroyed what had been Bohr's lifelong friendship with Heisenberg. Though some have attributed Bohr's reaction to anger, another explanation is more likely, Dr. Holton said.
"The first thing that would come to mind is not anger but deep fright," Dr. Holton said of Bohr's reaction to learning of a Nazi bomb program. "He understood what that would mean for civilization."
Many historians have praised the historical studies that Mr. Frayn undertook before writing the play. Still, in contrast to the complex Heisenberg of the play, the physicist in reality may have been easier to understand, Dr. Bernstein said.
Mr. Frayn "wants to see both sides of the story," Dr. Bernstein said, "and there's some stories where there's only one side. This may be one of them."