As a photographer you are wrong. You've probably gotten mixed up between the frame sizes of 35mm still film and 35mm cine film. 35mm still film is about 1.6 times larger than cine film and has more detail. I'm a visual effects artist and I can tell you for sure that it's not worth scanning 35mm film above 4k. You just can't tell the difference You see more detailed grain but thats about it.
Please mod parent informative. If you're a mod and can't see parent, you should be browsing at 0.
The "original audio track" for a 7" reel of 8mm film is 28 minutes of "click-click-click-click-click-click" followed by "slap..slap..slap..slap..slap".
Depending on how large the color crystals are, I don't think it would be too hard to plot each crystal's location....If you want to get really fancy, you can look at the arrangement of the crystals, try to reverse-engineer the light as it struck the film, and virtually re-expose the image by plotting a new grain map on film.
Would this work?
Sure, but really, it's going to an absolutely unnecessary extreme. You could plot the details of the grain like that, but the original prints were never expected to show anywhere near that much detail. At some point it just becomes gratuitous.
Yep, and people who point it out get modded "offtopic". They give mod points to anyone, regardless of intelligence. (I expect a "flamebait" mod for this, though it is factually correct and not worded to insult)
The/. blurb reads like they've patented scripting languages, when in fact it looks like they've patented a method of emulation-based scanning using a scripting language. If you read clams 1, 8, and 14, it sounds like they have a system wherein they grab an executable file, run the first bit of it under emulation in some sort of script-driven sandbox, then check the result to see if a virus has decrypted itself. I mean, if people are going to selectively read the patent, they might as well go all-out and only read the first for words of claim 1:
1. A virus detection system
Argh! Start the riots! Symantec has patented all virus detection systems!
I think it stems from the back that ABC doesn't show those little commericals anymore, like how a Bill goes to Captial Hill to become a law.
They're actually showing them currently, at 10:56am and 11:26am every Saturday morning. Don't know when they started again, but I know they stopped in 1985, when they decided to replace it with an exercise bit for kids hosted by Mary Lou fucking Retton (that lasted only 1 season). I hope whoever decided that is living in a cardboard box.
I think the real problem is that kids don't watch ABC anymore.
The problem with this solution is that not all ATMs are bilingual. Many are multi-lingual. Also, "enter" appears similar in many languages. I think the current solution is the best comprimise.
"Enter PIN" may be the same in both languages, but "and press here" are probably not. Cripes, if that's the only difficulty they can make it say "Enter PIN and press here for English". The current system is only seems like a good compromise if no one bothers to THINK.
However legally airspace above a country is also a part of that country, up to a height way above the satellite positions
It's generally accepted that a country controls only its airspace, which ends with the atmosphere, somewhere in the neighborhood of 120km altitude (note the "air" in the name). Geosynchronous satellites (like the ones that broadcast satellite TV) sit at about 38500km altitude, in outer space, far beyond the reaches of national sovreignty. They are definitely not in anyone's airspace.
I was thinking about a helmet.
It'll cover your eyes and ears. That was it can black out stuff it doesn't want you seeing, and bleep out stuff you shouldn't hear.
Sorry, what was that? My helmet went all dark when I tried to read that.
I'm just shocked at what *isn't* on my cards. For example, every time I go to my bank's ATM, I have to indicate whether I want to do business in English or Spanish. Shouldn't that information be on the card?
Hell, it doesn't even need to be on the card. When you put in the card it should pop up two soft key definitions. One on one side that says "Enter PIN and press here" and one on the other side that says the same thing in spanish. They needlessly complicated the process by making it a separate question. The UIs on ATMs have always been poorly designed, though. Clearly they were slapped together in an ad hoc fashion by engineers more interested in writing key debounce routines.
Interesting, but in the second amendment you conveniently glossed over the "well regulated" part.
Interesting, but "well regulated" in the specific context of the 2nd Amendment means "practiced and competent", as in regular troops; as opposed to irregulars, which were basically anybody who showed up with a sharp stick or club and no clear idea how to use it. The fact that "regulated" has come to have a different meaning in the common vernacular doesn't change that. Surely you aren't so foolish as to believe that mere semantic drift trumps the rights of man. If the phrase "the people" were to come to mean "members of Skull and Bones", would you then argue that only those who belong to said secret society retain the rights enumerated in the constitution? Extreme example, but functionally identical to the one you seem to be making.
Actually, it says "well regulated", not organized. You did read it yourself, right? And according to the historials, "well regulated" had a different meaning to the founders than "organized".
He's probably one of those people who believes that semantic drift is capable of changing the rights of man. Usually such people also think "rights" are just things the government owes them. You know, like the "right to free medical care" and the "right to affordable housing".
Wrong. Try actually reading the Constitution.
It says, "An organized militia being necessary..., the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not..."
Its right there in black and white.
Not wrong. Read the Federalist Papers. The specific wording was a compromise between two specific enumerations. When they decided to come up with the Bill of Rights, everyone had a laundry list of their specific concerns that they wanted addressed. Hamilton et al were concerned with keeping it simple. They tried to make each amendment as terse as possible. On the issue of militias, certain convention reps were concerned that the feds would claim the sole right to run the military, while others were concerned with the individual right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd is worded to address the concerns of both. The first part (re: the militia) was to guarantee that local militias would be permitted, and the second part to guarantee that the power of revolution remained in the hands of the people. The US Code clearly defines the militia, and it's basically everyone who's not in the regular military, the reserves, or the national guard; so don't bother arguing along that tack.
And of course that was written back when you had a war your soldiers brought their own guns.
In a civil war, the combatants still do bring their own guns. The purpose of an armed citizenry is to guarantee that the government rules only at the sufferance of the populus. Self defense against invasion and lawlessness is another purpose, but really the lesser of them. Remember, the founding fathers had just won a war of independence, throwing off the yoke of a tyrranical government. They wanted their posterity to be able to do the same.
In any event, the fact that we are having this argument means it is anything but "unequivocal".
Actually, it doesn't. All it means is that one side is unwilling to accept the inarguable definition of "militia" according to the US Code and the unambiguous purpose of the wording as explained by Alexander Hamilton himself in the Federalist papers. Arguing against unequivocal points doesn't make the points equivocal-- it just makes you wrong.
The Constitution commands that it be enterpreted tersely, in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Now tell me where it says that unwritten matters of the Constitution may be derived by the whim of activist judges? I speak of such things as abortion, which according to said Amendments is a right for States to legislate against;
...
Unbelievable.
Oh, I most certainly agree that that particular decision is pretty damn weak, and clearly a poorly-camouflaged instance of judicial activism. The Right to Privacy is, in my opinion, a perfect reasonable example of an unenumerated right, a la the 9th Amendment. Deciding that abortion falls under said privacy right, however, was in my opinion bad precedent. It pretty much opens the door to including anything under such a vast, unlimited "none of your beeswax" umbrella. The fact that Blackmun didn't feel he could assert abortion as it's own right under the 9th is rather telling, I think.
IAALS, and you can pretty much ignore this entire post above me. scienter doesn't apply if there's no way to learn the law.
totally separate issue from what's being discussed here.
Yah, as I recall scienter is applicable to things like unknowingly passing counterfeit currency, or growing opium poppies in your front yard and honestly believing they're "just flowers"...
I take that back- Reading my original post I can see that you had simply truncated my sentence to change its meaning.
Yeah, whaddya expect from a jackass who picks as his/. userID the name of a character from "The West Wing"? It's tantamount to admitting that you're not as creative as a bad TV writer.
This same argument is trotted (Trotskied:)) out every time, completely neglecting 'True' democracy has yet to be tried, 'True'capialtism has yet to be tried, 'True' socialism has yet to be tried, blah, blah, blah. It will always be a meaningless statement if the standard is 'idealized' insert your preference here has yet to be tried. The fact is there's a direct line between the original concept of communism and its realizations. That they were such dismal failures points to a flaw in the concept, not just the implementation.
Yep. It's the eternal struggle between the Platonic Idealists and the Aristotelian Realists. The dreamers keep muttering about how the "real" communism would work, when in fact this "real" communism is imaginary communism. "Ideal" communism is totally incompatible with the reality of human nature. You can't argue from the position of "if the world were different". The world is all that is the case.
"...but then, on slashdot we're probably all just hopeless libertarians anyway;)"
No they're not. Libertarians support as small and unimposing government as possible.
Most Slashdotters support tariffs, taxes, affirmative action, raising minimum wage, abortion, entitlement politics, and countless other left/liberal philosophies like government provided health insurance.
Heh. Don't forget "rational" gun control laws, the corporate death penalty, and federal limits on how big a car you can buy...
I agree, the construct 'group' doesn't exist in the Constitution as far as I know. But then again, the Supreme Court has been able to find non-existing language in the Constitution before, so it may very well be introduced by judicial fiat.
When it comes to constitutional rights, language doesn't need to exist in order for a right to be protected. Bill of Rights, 9th Amd basically says "Just because we didn't choose to write it down here does not mean the right does not exist". Strict Constructionists seem to always forget the 1st and 9th Amendments, but then the Loose Interpretationists always ignore the 2nd and the 10th....
A basketball player can improve, have a good streak of games, and then have his performance deteriorate if he does not keep up his training (perhaps to even lower than the baseline, never to improve again).
"Hot hand" isn't about having a good streak of games, it's about making consecutive baskets in a single game.
What's with the sig, it makes perfect sense to me?
Sure, if you know what the guy saying it is talking about. Imagine it's Day 1 of SIGINT analyst school and
"The caveat SECRET-SPOKE is classified CONFIDENTIAL-HVCCO-- which is itself, UNCLASSIFIED"
was the second sentence out of the instructor's mouth, the first being "All paperwork must be properly labelled with the proper classification and caveat." The reaction of the entire class was universally "huh?"
Hack Jandy needs to stop trying to use words he has only heard spoken aloud
Expanding your written vocabulary with words you've heard spoken is a good thing. Pointing out mistakes can also be helpful. Telling people not to bother trying, however, is just retarded. Try growing up, Dun Malg. You might find you like it.
Grow up? Here? Never! Slashdot is so full of assclowns and jerkoffs that it's the only place I feel comfortable being a Total Fuckwad. As for expanding your written vocabulary with overheard words, it's often wise to check the spelling first. In this day of spell checkers, there's no excuse not to (other than perhaps laziness or stupidity) and it's particularly foolish to submit articles for publication without checking. I generally don't care if comments contain proper spelling, for what it's worth.
A kg defined in terms of a kg then becomes recursive...
But wouldn't such a recursive definition of the kilogram have a definite limit?
Technically, the value will only approach zero, but never reach it. You can plot the curve out and calculate the area beneath it at whatever precision you like, but it's a non-terminating fraction. Physicists would never stand for any definition that depends upon such mathematical sleight-of-hand. They want a hard quantity defined in terms of other things.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if "discontempt" isn't actually a word, it should be.
Heh. Sure, but I think he'd be disqualified from the competition because he didn't fly in an aircraft.
As a photographer you are wrong. You've probably gotten mixed up between the frame sizes of 35mm still film and 35mm cine film. 35mm still film is about 1.6 times larger than cine film and has more detail. I'm a visual effects artist and I can tell you for sure that it's not worth scanning 35mm film above 4k. You just can't tell the difference You see more detailed grain but thats about it.
Please mod parent informative. If you're a mod and can't see parent, you should be browsing at 0.
The "original audio track" for a 7" reel of 8mm film is 28 minutes of "click-click-click-click-click-click" followed by "slap..slap..slap..slap..slap".
Would this work?
Sure, but really, it's going to an absolutely unnecessary extreme. You could plot the details of the grain like that, but the original prints were never expected to show anywhere near that much detail. At some point it just becomes gratuitous.
Yep, and people who point it out get modded "offtopic". They give mod points to anyone, regardless of intelligence. (I expect a "flamebait" mod for this, though it is factually correct and not worded to insult)
Argh! Start the riots! Symantec has patented all virus detection systems!
Get a grip, people.
They're actually showing them currently, at 10:56am and 11:26am every Saturday morning. Don't know when they started again, but I know they stopped in 1985, when they decided to replace it with an exercise bit for kids hosted by Mary Lou fucking Retton (that lasted only 1 season). I hope whoever decided that is living in a cardboard box.
I think the real problem is that kids don't watch ABC anymore.
"Enter PIN" may be the same in both languages, but "and press here" are probably not. Cripes, if that's the only difficulty they can make it say "Enter PIN and press here for English". The current system is only seems like a good compromise if no one bothers to THINK.
It's generally accepted that a country controls only its airspace, which ends with the atmosphere, somewhere in the neighborhood of 120km altitude (note the "air" in the name). Geosynchronous satellites (like the ones that broadcast satellite TV) sit at about 38500km altitude, in outer space, far beyond the reaches of national sovreignty. They are definitely not in anyone's airspace.
Sorry, what was that? My helmet went all dark when I tried to read that.
Hell, it doesn't even need to be on the card. When you put in the card it should pop up two soft key definitions. One on one side that says "Enter PIN and press here" and one on the other side that says the same thing in spanish. They needlessly complicated the process by making it a separate question. The UIs on ATMs have always been poorly designed, though. Clearly they were slapped together in an ad hoc fashion by engineers more interested in writing key debounce routines.
Interesting, but "well regulated" in the specific context of the 2nd Amendment means "practiced and competent", as in regular troops; as opposed to irregulars, which were basically anybody who showed up with a sharp stick or club and no clear idea how to use it. The fact that "regulated" has come to have a different meaning in the common vernacular doesn't change that. Surely you aren't so foolish as to believe that mere semantic drift trumps the rights of man. If the phrase "the people" were to come to mean "members of Skull and Bones", would you then argue that only those who belong to said secret society retain the rights enumerated in the constitution? Extreme example, but functionally identical to the one you seem to be making.
He's probably one of those people who believes that semantic drift is capable of changing the rights of man. Usually such people also think "rights" are just things the government owes them. You know, like the "right to free medical care" and the "right to affordable housing".
Not wrong. Read the Federalist Papers. The specific wording was a compromise between two specific enumerations. When they decided to come up with the Bill of Rights, everyone had a laundry list of their specific concerns that they wanted addressed. Hamilton et al were concerned with keeping it simple. They tried to make each amendment as terse as possible. On the issue of militias, certain convention reps were concerned that the feds would claim the sole right to run the military, while others were concerned with the individual right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd is worded to address the concerns of both. The first part (re: the militia) was to guarantee that local militias would be permitted, and the second part to guarantee that the power of revolution remained in the hands of the people. The US Code clearly defines the militia, and it's basically everyone who's not in the regular military, the reserves, or the national guard; so don't bother arguing along that tack.
And of course that was written back when you had a war your soldiers brought their own guns.
In a civil war, the combatants still do bring their own guns. The purpose of an armed citizenry is to guarantee that the government rules only at the sufferance of the populus. Self defense against invasion and lawlessness is another purpose, but really the lesser of them. Remember, the founding fathers had just won a war of independence, throwing off the yoke of a tyrranical government. They wanted their posterity to be able to do the same.
In any event, the fact that we are having this argument means it is anything but "unequivocal".
Actually, it doesn't. All it means is that one side is unwilling to accept the inarguable definition of "militia" according to the US Code and the unambiguous purpose of the wording as explained by Alexander Hamilton himself in the Federalist papers. Arguing against unequivocal points doesn't make the points equivocal-- it just makes you wrong.
...
Unbelievable.
Oh, I most certainly agree that that particular decision is pretty damn weak, and clearly a poorly-camouflaged instance of judicial activism. The Right to Privacy is, in my opinion, a perfect reasonable example of an unenumerated right, a la the 9th Amendment. Deciding that abortion falls under said privacy right, however, was in my opinion bad precedent. It pretty much opens the door to including anything under such a vast, unlimited "none of your beeswax" umbrella. The fact that Blackmun didn't feel he could assert abortion as it's own right under the 9th is rather telling, I think.
Yah, as I recall scienter is applicable to things like unknowingly passing counterfeit currency, or growing opium poppies in your front yard and honestly believing they're "just flowers"...
Yeah, whaddya expect from a jackass who picks as his /. userID the name of a character from "The West Wing"? It's tantamount to admitting that you're not as creative as a bad TV writer.
Yep. It's the eternal struggle between the Platonic Idealists and the Aristotelian Realists. The dreamers keep muttering about how the "real" communism would work, when in fact this "real" communism is imaginary communism. "Ideal" communism is totally incompatible with the reality of human nature. You can't argue from the position of "if the world were different". The world is all that is the case.
No they're not. Libertarians support as small and unimposing government as possible. Most Slashdotters support tariffs, taxes, affirmative action, raising minimum wage, abortion, entitlement politics, and countless other left/liberal philosophies like government provided health insurance.
Heh. Don't forget "rational" gun control laws, the corporate death penalty, and federal limits on how big a car you can buy...
When it comes to constitutional rights, language doesn't need to exist in order for a right to be protected. Bill of Rights, 9th Amd basically says "Just because we didn't choose to write it down here does not mean the right does not exist". Strict Constructionists seem to always forget the 1st and 9th Amendments, but then the Loose Interpretationists always ignore the 2nd and the 10th....
"Hot hand" isn't about having a good streak of games, it's about making consecutive baskets in a single game.
Sure, if you know what the guy saying it is talking about. Imagine it's Day 1 of SIGINT analyst school and
"The caveat SECRET-SPOKE is classified CONFIDENTIAL-HVCCO-- which is itself, UNCLASSIFIED"
was the second sentence out of the instructor's mouth, the first being "All paperwork must be properly labelled with the proper classification and caveat." The reaction of the entire class was universally "huh?"
Expanding your written vocabulary with words you've heard spoken is a good thing. Pointing out mistakes can also be helpful. Telling people not to bother trying, however, is just retarded. Try growing up, Dun Malg. You might find you like it.
Grow up? Here? Never! Slashdot is so full of assclowns and jerkoffs that it's the only place I feel comfortable being a Total Fuckwad. As for expanding your written vocabulary with overheard words, it's often wise to check the spelling first. In this day of spell checkers, there's no excuse not to (other than perhaps laziness or stupidity) and it's particularly foolish to submit articles for publication without checking. I generally don't care if comments contain proper spelling, for what it's worth.
But wouldn't such a recursive definition of the kilogram have a definite limit?
Technically, the value will only approach zero, but never reach it. You can plot the curve out and calculate the area beneath it at whatever precision you like, but it's a non-terminating fraction. Physicists would never stand for any definition that depends upon such mathematical sleight-of-hand. They want a hard quantity defined in terms of other things.