The article was also unclear why such horsepower is needed for such a mundane process as scanning and storing film.
One word: time. You can't speed up the scanning process without buying another scanner, and the time overhead it takes to dump the data to storage is negligable. But they're fiddling around with gf/x for each frame -- removing spots, evening out the color, etc. That takes processing power.
90% of the people who participate in a TV Turnoff Week successfully reduce the amount of television they watch permanently. ... And 100% successfully reduce the amount of tv they watch that week.
Actually, 100% of the people who participate in a TV Turnoff Week will reduce the amount of television they watch permanently. This is just simple subtraction, here. Take whatever would be the amount of total television hours one would watch under normal viewing habits, then shut off your TV for any time during that period, and you lower the total amount.
Thinking about it now, that's a really stupid statistic. "100% of people who refrain from eating hamburgers will lower their overall hamburger intake." Well, duh.
Something else that's pretty cool: if you notice, as you increase your distance substantially, you start having to think relativistically; that is, the things really far away are also really old, since it takes light all that time to travel to us. The top line is just great, though, because now you're not talking about distance any more, but cosmological theory itself. Keep heading out, keep going back in time to the start, and before that? "Comoving future visibility limit."
Things like this make me wish I'd pursued astronomy more.
Hubble can take pretty (for me as a non-astronomer) pictures of objects far away and in the past [...] and yet it can't take a picture of something within our system larger than a pixel.
Now you may start to get a sense of just how mind-freakingly big some interstellar objects are. This logarithmic maps of the universe should help put things in perspective. Once you've got the image, start from the very bottom and work your way up. And keep repeating to yourself, "another order of magnitude... and another order of magnitude... and another..."
Mozilla was originally the name for the Netscape internet browser. When Marc Andreesen developed the replacement for Mosaic, the first proper web browser, it was named Mozilla (Mosaic-Killer, Godzilla). The marketing guys at his new company decided to change it to Netscape Navigator, but the original core of developers kept the name.
Then a bunch of stuff happened, AOL bought Netscape, but at that point the source code had been released into the wild under its original name, "Mozilla". The team of developers working on Mozilla are in some cases the original Netscape team, with the additional benefit (depending on who you ask) of a slew of contribitors.
Mozilla is the name of their full-featured internet suite, much like Netscape had its Communicator edition that bundled email and newsgroups. But for people who just want an internet browser, they offer a trimmed-down version called FireFox (previously Firebird, Phoenix). As to your question:
Does that mean that Mozilla 1.7 will have Firefox 1.0 as it's browser?
The answer is: sort of. The Mozilla "core" includes some things you may have heard about like the Gecko rendering engine. FireFox is based on Mozilla's core, not the other way around. But FireFox is an independant development from Mozilla's internet browser, which is called Sea Monkey.
I know it can get a little confusing. This list of the different Mozilla components combined with this list of the different browsers based off the Mozilla core should put some faces to the names.
The problem isn't raw materials for construction. We're literally swimming in 'em. The problem is going to be energy production. Oil and coal will be around for a little bit longer, but 50 years down the line when the rest of the 3rd world (and all of China) is turning on their lights at night, and you're talking about serious energy concerns. "Alternative" isn't an option, it's going to be a necessity.
The other problem is that NASA is dealing with space exploration in the completely wrong way. I wish they were bigger Sci-Fi geeks, because just about everysingleexampleofourfuture'sspacecrafts are designed and built in space. It's stupid to be expending this much effort to go up and down when you could be having interstellar flights lasting months for the same amount of energy.
What the X-Prize is really all about is that we need to be able to get into space reliably and back again, it should be cheap, and it should be relatively safe. NASA has been spending a large part of its dough in past years to develop something that is fully capable of being produced by commercial interests today. But for real space travel, you need scientists on board for long periods to work "in-the-field" so to speak. If you need them to go to the surface of a planet, you just use shuttlecraft.
What annoys me is that they (NASA) should be putting their cash in interstellar space vehicle design, in-space production, and power requirements for these ships. There's no reason we can't have people studying Mars while orbitting it -- if you need food for three months, you just tack on an extra cargo hold to your ship and have only the mass / energy considerations to think about.
Nowadays the primary concern is "I've only got so much payload because this thing has to break loose of the Earth's gravity intact." So they're flinging satellites to the far edges of our solar system, keeping their fingers crossed for the sometimes decade-long wait to find out if their fragile, expensive equipment functions correctly.
Why does NASA ignore what is so obvious to the rest of the imaginative world? Most sci-fi and anime fans already knows there are escape velocity/atmosphere vehicles, and interstellar vehicles (and know that the two don't mix very well with each other).
At first I thought "if linux is better than windows, why try to be windows".
While the OS has seen some dumbing down in recent years (mainly XP), Microsoft has spent a lot of money developing as well as copying from those who have also spent a lot of money developing a good User Interface.
Window Manager writers don't have to reinvent the wheel -- there are a few things that are simply good ideas that should be implemented. A central control panel where UI and system tweaks can be done without forcing the user to resort to editing text files is a good idea. Universal COPY and PASTE context menus and a backend smart enough to know the capabilities of PASTE with the different objects you might be COPYING (e.g., pictures or text) is a good idea.
The thing is, the more I think about what Linux really needs in terms of UI, the more my mind settles on OSX. You want your shell? You can have your shell in a window, no problem. You want fancy eye-candy for Grandma and the Children? Got that, too. I'm glad Apple took the plunge, because God knows it'll take the open source community years to get it right.
Even after a million articles like this, with people clamoring for better a better UI, there are still +5, Interesting comments about why it's not of fundemental importance to integrate the graphical subsystem into the OS itself. No, it makes much more sense to require users to install it themselves. Kind of like Windows 3.1 over DOS.
People like graphics. They have proven it by making Microsoft one of the richest companies in the world, and perhaps more tellingly, one of the most pirated software companies in the world. Even if you're not buying it, you're still using it, which is good enough for Microsoft and good enough to prove my point. I'd be curious to see how many/. readers are either operating exlusively in Windows or have a box they can boot into.
I think you may have been a little overwhelmed by the smell of fresh proscuito and canolis in the North End, but the "mob" has been over and done with in Boston since the 80's. Take it from an aquaintance of Mike Anguilo; any "hits" that happen now are just petty thugs, robbers and addicts.
You can still sometimes see some of the old faces around, but they keep to themselves and are neither organized nor criminal.
Background: Lived in Boston (Back Bay, the Allston ghetto & the North End) for a decade. Went to school for four of those 10. Worked with a fashion photographer for 3 years (did a lot of work for the Improper Bostonian and Stuff@Nite).
The girls are not hot. The school I attended (B.U.) had probably the best selection of attractive women, but if you've ever been to Germany or the Czech Republic and walked around, or hell, even California, you would be decidely unimpressed.
The thing that confuses some people is that there are a lot of young people. Young does not mean hot.
The nightlife is decent, but the previous poster is clearly unaware of the good hotspots. His mentality is similar to 95% of the young students that arrive in Boston, fresh-faced and new. "I'm free! Let's pound some beer and dance badly to awful, uninspired techno!" While there are a few scattered places that are nice, it's not like the city's a cultural mecca.
If you're on the Eastern seaboard and want to see attractive women, you're going to have to head to New York. In the U.S., the attractive women go to the expensive cities. It's just a fact of life. There are some exceptions to this rule, but they involve heading into the Great Plains, where there's NO nightlife, or parts of the south, where you'll have to deal with heat and, well, southerners.
I know what you mean. Some of us are friggin' old as dirt around here. I remember when MiXeD cases first started, back in the day. Now Tom's Hardware Guide has taken over the moniker of the infamous, and hardly anyone is the wiser.
I often find myself doing double-takes on ICE and INC abbreviations as well...
I don't understand what all the hub-bub is about. Outlook Express and Outlook 2003 users can (finally!) force all email to be rendered as text-only. No scripting allowed.
There are a couple of ways to do this. One way is to kill scripting and ActiveX in your security zones, but this can be annoying since Microsoft didn't seem to think it important enough to separate the web from simple email when you change the Internet Options panel.
There's a nice COM add-in for Outlook that adds an Attachment Security Options page to the Tools | Options dialog in Outlook 2002 to allow you to manage not only which file attachments are blocked, but also how email is rendered. GET IT NOW.*
* Only for Outlook 2000 SP3, SP2, SP1, Outlook 2002, and Outlook 2003.
Oh, and it also adds a VERY NICE feature that minimizes Outlook to the system tray. Excellent for when you have to keep your Outlook open during work but hate having it take up valuable Task Manager space.
Not true. You can get Canon L glass on some of the middle-range lenses for half that. The problem is that middle-range will not get the kinds of shots SI needs. They need big-honkin' glass to get shots from any distance at a good speed. Just look at all the pretty white lens bodies on the sidelines. The 2.8L 400mm IS USM goes for about $5500.
The funny thing is, they use the same glass for their swimsuit issue to flatten the depth, (though the 300mm is usually enough). Walkie talkies are standard issue when the photog has to instruct the guy holding the reflector on his model to "move a little to the right".
The point is that you equate someone being hacked, which is a manevolent activity, with a kid being tricked for his own good, which is benevolent or at the very least indifferent.
If some kid asked me for alcohol & I gave him orange juice, telling him it's a screwdriver, can I be arrested for "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor?
Your analogy is flawed, and is perhaps the reason you don't see anything wrong with what they did. Let's rephrase that statement and see what you think:
"If some kid asked me for alocohol & I have him antifreeze, telling him it's really hard vodka, can I be arrested for "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor?" Of course not. But you can be arrested for Endangering a Minor.
Are you serious? Where in the hell would they put it? BU's security is ludicrously lax... I recall fondly that even after they closed off their law building (too many jumpers) you can still easily get on the roof for a nice view of the city.
Or would they build a new facility like they did with the Photonic lab? Now that's a cool building.
joke -- (joek) n. 1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line. 2. A mischievous trick; a prank. 3. Your penis.
There are a couple of ways to do it. The first method involves having a very willing girlfriend that has a lot of friends who aren't afraid to take their clothes off. If you date a stripper or a wanna-be porn starlet, you're set.
The second method is more difficult now, but basically, find a niche and fill it. Unfortunately, most of the common fetishes (big breasts, asians, lesbian, blonds, etc.) are already represented by some very well-established sites, so what you're left with is catering to the Fat Asian Foot-Fetishists out there. Not very enjoyable work, and hard-as-hell to get content.
Personally, I worked with a photographer for a few years, and we did a number of shoots for strippers who wanted to become models. The problem is, most strippers simply don't have the right looks or height to be a model. But we would shoot them regardless, since they paid our bills.
We decided to offer free publicity shots (since we kept the publishing rights), and word got around. Mind you, Joe Photo won't be able to pull this off. The key to being a successful photographer is looking like a successful photographer: plenty of strobes, lots of tripods hanging on the walls, a proper studio, tearsheets casually tossed about, etc.. The photog I worked with probably had a hundred grand invested in equipment.
The nice thing about strippers is that they tend to be a bit crazy to begin with, and if you're reasonably cool they won't have a problem doing crazy shit in front of a camera. In their minds, it beats having to ass-grind some fat slob at a club any day of the week.
This can get expensive, however, depending on location. Which is the next point: go where the talent is. We worked on the East Coast, and there's just not a lot of girls going into porn over here. And the strippers? Well, your standards tend to drop when you have a real-flesh-and-blood girl dancing for you, but for an online audience the bar is raised considerably. Your girls either better be extremely attractive, have enormous breasts, or be willing to do some pretty extreme stuff if you're going to keep up with the competition.
So, if you really want to be a PornGod, here's my advice. First, move to L.A. -- there's a lot more "talent" (ha!) to be had for a lot less dough. Learn some basic studio photography, then shell out a couple grand for a prosumer digital camera and some strobes. Rent a studio someplace that's easy to get to by public transportation (bus, train, whatever). Or, make friends with a photographer that's already established and shares your enthusiasm for naked chicks and doesn't mind ruining his professional career (i.e., his day job). That's not to say that your name will get dragged through the mud if you go into porn, but it's a risk.
Once you've got that, set up a website with a host that won't boot you for hosting porn. Set up your site, plan what kind of market you're aiming at, and start filling it with stuff you find on USENET. Yes, it's not really legal, but if there's no (c) on the picture, and you're still small-time, you can consider it fair game. Now comes the fun part...
Head down to your local strip club. You're not going for a lap dance, so try and be professional and curteous. Really look at the girls -- don't just oggle their nakedness. If you don't see anyone that catches your eye, move on to the next place. Try to remain as objective as you can (it gets easier the more you do it). If you find a couple of girls you like, approach them after a routine when they're walking around the club. Tell them your name, what you would like to use them for, and hand them a business card. Look at her eyes, not her tits, and you're more likely to be taken seriously. Tell them how much you're paying for a shoot, and ask them to pass along the information to anyone they think might be interested.
Don't engage them in a long conversation, since they're technically on the clock and y
When you try and uninstall programs that are "integral to the OS" (WMP, Explorer, Outlook Express!) all it does is remove the links that are on your desktop/start menu. It does not delete the files, however.
Slashdot Mirror
The article was also unclear why such horsepower is needed for such a mundane process as scanning and storing film.
One word: time. You can't speed up the scanning process without buying another scanner, and the time overhead it takes to dump the data to storage is negligable. But they're fiddling around with gf/x for each frame -- removing spots, evening out the color, etc. That takes processing power.
Holy fuck that was funny.
90% of the people who participate in a TV Turnoff Week successfully reduce the amount of television they watch permanently.
...
And 100% successfully reduce the amount of tv they watch that week.
Actually, 100% of the people who participate in a TV Turnoff Week will reduce the amount of television they watch permanently. This is just simple subtraction, here. Take whatever would be the amount of total television hours one would watch under normal viewing habits, then shut off your TV for any time during that period, and you lower the total amount.
Thinking about it now, that's a really stupid statistic. "100% of people who refrain from eating hamburgers will lower their overall hamburger intake." Well, duh.
Something else that's pretty cool: if you notice, as you increase your distance substantially, you start having to think relativistically; that is, the things really far away are also really old, since it takes light all that time to travel to us. The top line is just great, though, because now you're not talking about distance any more, but cosmological theory itself. Keep heading out, keep going back in time to the start, and before that? "Comoving future visibility limit."
Things like this make me wish I'd pursued astronomy more.
Hubble can take pretty (for me as a non-astronomer) pictures of objects far away and in the past [...] and yet it can't take a picture of something within our system larger than a pixel.
Now you may start to get a sense of just how mind-freakingly big some interstellar objects are. This logarithmic maps of the universe should help put things in perspective. Once you've got the image, start from the very bottom and work your way up. And keep repeating to yourself, "another order of magnitude... and another order of magnitude... and another..."
Mozilla was originally the name for the Netscape internet browser. When Marc Andreesen developed the replacement for Mosaic, the first proper web browser, it was named Mozilla (Mosaic-Killer, Godzilla). The marketing guys at his new company decided to change it to Netscape Navigator, but the original core of developers kept the name.
Then a bunch of stuff happened, AOL bought Netscape, but at that point the source code had been released into the wild under its original name, "Mozilla". The team of developers working on Mozilla are in some cases the original Netscape team, with the additional benefit (depending on who you ask) of a slew of contribitors.
Mozilla is the name of their full-featured internet suite, much like Netscape had its Communicator edition that bundled email and newsgroups. But for people who just want an internet browser, they offer a trimmed-down version called FireFox (previously Firebird, Phoenix). As to your question:
Does that mean that Mozilla 1.7 will have Firefox 1.0 as it's browser?
The answer is: sort of. The Mozilla "core" includes some things you may have heard about like the Gecko rendering engine. FireFox is based on Mozilla's core, not the other way around. But FireFox is an independant development from Mozilla's internet browser, which is called Sea Monkey.
I know it can get a little confusing. This list of the different Mozilla components combined with this list of the different browsers based off the Mozilla core should put some faces to the names.
Man, I feel like an idiot asking this...
Feel like an idiot if you hadn't asked it.
I can't quite put my finger on it, but I like the way you think!
The problem isn't raw materials for construction. We're literally swimming in 'em. The problem is going to be energy production. Oil and coal will be around for a little bit longer, but 50 years down the line when the rest of the 3rd world (and all of China) is turning on their lights at night, and you're talking about serious energy concerns. "Alternative" isn't an option, it's going to be a necessity.
The other problem is that NASA is dealing with space exploration in the completely wrong way. I wish they were bigger Sci-Fi geeks, because just about every single example of our future's spacecrafts are designed and built in space. It's stupid to be expending this much effort to go up and down when you could be having interstellar flights lasting months for the same amount of energy.
What the X-Prize is really all about is that we need to be able to get into space reliably and back again, it should be cheap, and it should be relatively safe. NASA has been spending a large part of its dough in past years to develop something that is fully capable of being produced by commercial interests today. But for real space travel, you need scientists on board for long periods to work "in-the-field" so to speak. If you need them to go to the surface of a planet, you just use shuttle craft.
What annoys me is that they (NASA) should be putting their cash in interstellar space vehicle design, in-space production, and power requirements for these ships. There's no reason we can't have people studying Mars while orbitting it -- if you need food for three months, you just tack on an extra cargo hold to your ship and have only the mass / energy considerations to think about.
Nowadays the primary concern is "I've only got so much payload because this thing has to break loose of the Earth's gravity intact." So they're flinging satellites to the far edges of our solar system, keeping their fingers crossed for the sometimes decade-long wait to find out if their fragile, expensive equipment functions correctly.
Why does NASA ignore what is so obvious to the rest of the imaginative world? Most sci-fi and anime fans already knows there are escape velocity/atmosphere vehicles, and interstellar vehicles (and know that the two don't mix very well with each other).
Did anybody else read this as "hand jobs to India"?
(Ha. Up-in-arms -- hand-job. God I love blowing karma.)
SLASH!
Aah-aaaaah!
They crashed everyone of us!
At first I thought "if linux is better than windows, why try to be windows".
/. readers are either operating exlusively in Windows or have a box they can boot into.
While the OS has seen some dumbing down in recent years (mainly XP), Microsoft has spent a lot of money developing as well as copying from those who have also spent a lot of money developing a good User Interface.
Window Manager writers don't have to reinvent the wheel -- there are a few things that are simply good ideas that should be implemented. A central control panel where UI and system tweaks can be done without forcing the user to resort to editing text files is a good idea. Universal COPY and PASTE context menus and a backend smart enough to know the capabilities of PASTE with the different objects you might be COPYING (e.g., pictures or text) is a good idea.
The thing is, the more I think about what Linux really needs in terms of UI, the more my mind settles on OSX. You want your shell? You can have your shell in a window, no problem. You want fancy eye-candy for Grandma and the Children? Got that, too. I'm glad Apple took the plunge, because God knows it'll take the open source community years to get it right.
Even after a million articles like this, with people clamoring for better a better UI, there are still +5, Interesting comments about why it's not of fundemental importance to integrate the graphical subsystem into the OS itself. No, it makes much more sense to require users to install it themselves. Kind of like Windows 3.1 over DOS.
People like graphics. They have proven it by making Microsoft one of the richest companies in the world, and perhaps more tellingly, one of the most pirated software companies in the world. Even if you're not buying it, you're still using it, which is good enough for Microsoft and good enough to prove my point. I'd be curious to see how many
I think you may have been a little overwhelmed by the smell of fresh proscuito and canolis in the North End, but the "mob" has been over and done with in Boston since the 80's. Take it from an aquaintance of Mike Anguilo; any "hits" that happen now are just petty thugs, robbers and addicts.
You can still sometimes see some of the old faces around, but they keep to themselves and are neither organized nor criminal.
Background: Lived in Boston (Back Bay, the Allston ghetto & the North End) for a decade. Went to school for four of those 10. Worked with a fashion photographer for 3 years (did a lot of work for the Improper Bostonian and Stuff@Nite).
The girls are not hot. The school I attended (B.U.) had probably the best selection of attractive women, but if you've ever been to Germany or the Czech Republic and walked around, or hell, even California, you would be decidely unimpressed.
The thing that confuses some people is that there are a lot of young people. Young does not mean hot.
The nightlife is decent, but the previous poster is clearly unaware of the good hotspots. His mentality is similar to 95% of the young students that arrive in Boston, fresh-faced and new. "I'm free! Let's pound some beer and dance badly to awful, uninspired techno!" While there are a few scattered places that are nice, it's not like the city's a cultural mecca.
If you're on the Eastern seaboard and want to see attractive women, you're going to have to head to New York. In the U.S., the attractive women go to the expensive cities. It's just a fact of life. There are some exceptions to this rule, but they involve heading into the Great Plains, where there's NO nightlife, or parts of the south, where you'll have to deal with heat and, well, southerners.
I know what you mean. Some of us are friggin' old as dirt around here. I remember when MiXeD cases first started, back in the day. Now Tom's Hardware Guide has taken over the moniker of the infamous, and hardly anyone is the wiser.
I often find myself doing double-takes on ICE and INC abbreviations as well...
Ahhh... the good 'ol days.
I don't understand what all the hub-bub is about. Outlook Express and Outlook 2003 users can (finally!) force all email to be rendered as text-only. No scripting allowed.
There are a couple of ways to do this. One way is to kill scripting and ActiveX in your security zones, but this can be annoying since Microsoft didn't seem to think it important enough to separate the web from simple email when you change the Internet Options panel.
There's a nice COM add-in for Outlook that adds an Attachment Security Options page to the Tools | Options dialog in Outlook 2002 to allow you to manage not only which file attachments are blocked, but also how email is rendered. GET IT NOW.*
* Only for Outlook 2000 SP3, SP2, SP1, Outlook 2002, and Outlook 2003.
Oh, and it also adds a VERY NICE feature that minimizes Outlook to the system tray. Excellent for when you have to keep your Outlook open during work but hate having it take up valuable Task Manager space.
Or you can just rename the file. I believe the shortcut on Windows is F2. Works pretty well as long as your captions don't require \ / : * ? or |.
Not true. You can get Canon L glass on some of the middle-range lenses for half that. The problem is that middle-range will not get the kinds of shots SI needs. They need big-honkin' glass to get shots from any distance at a good speed. Just look at all the pretty white lens bodies on the sidelines. The 2.8L 400mm IS USM goes for about $5500.
The funny thing is, they use the same glass for their swimsuit issue to flatten the depth, (though the 300mm is usually enough). Walkie talkies are standard issue when the photog has to instruct the guy holding the reflector on his model to "move a little to the right".
Then I was putting his life at risk
The point is that you equate someone being hacked, which is a manevolent activity, with a kid being tricked for his own good, which is benevolent or at the very least indifferent.
If some kid asked me for alcohol & I gave him orange juice, telling him it's a screwdriver, can I be arrested for "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor?
Your analogy is flawed, and is perhaps the reason you don't see anything wrong with what they did. Let's rephrase that statement and see what you think:
"If some kid asked me for alocohol & I have him antifreeze, telling him it's really hard vodka, can I be arrested for "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor?" Of course not. But you can be arrested for Endangering a Minor.
One propsed for Boston University
Are you serious? Where in the hell would they put it? BU's security is ludicrously lax... I recall fondly that even after they closed off their law building (too many jumpers) you can still easily get on the roof for a nice view of the city.
Or would they build a new facility like they did with the Photonic lab? Now that's a cool building.
joke -- (joek) n.
1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
3. Your penis.
I suppose I might as well save you all the trouble.
How does one become an adult webmaster
There are a couple of ways to do it. The first method involves having a very willing girlfriend that has a lot of friends who aren't afraid to take their clothes off. If you date a stripper or a wanna-be porn starlet, you're set.
The second method is more difficult now, but basically, find a niche and fill it. Unfortunately, most of the common fetishes (big breasts, asians, lesbian, blonds, etc.) are already represented by some very well-established sites, so what you're left with is catering to the Fat Asian Foot-Fetishists out there. Not very enjoyable work, and hard-as-hell to get content.
Personally, I worked with a photographer for a few years, and we did a number of shoots for strippers who wanted to become models. The problem is, most strippers simply don't have the right looks or height to be a model. But we would shoot them regardless, since they paid our bills.
We decided to offer free publicity shots (since we kept the publishing rights), and word got around. Mind you, Joe Photo won't be able to pull this off. The key to being a successful photographer is looking like a successful photographer: plenty of strobes, lots of tripods hanging on the walls, a proper studio, tearsheets casually tossed about, etc.. The photog I worked with probably had a hundred grand invested in equipment.
The nice thing about strippers is that they tend to be a bit crazy to begin with, and if you're reasonably cool they won't have a problem doing crazy shit in front of a camera. In their minds, it beats having to ass-grind some fat slob at a club any day of the week.
This can get expensive, however, depending on location. Which is the next point: go where the talent is. We worked on the East Coast, and there's just not a lot of girls going into porn over here. And the strippers? Well, your standards tend to drop when you have a real-flesh-and-blood girl dancing for you, but for an online audience the bar is raised considerably. Your girls either better be extremely attractive, have enormous breasts, or be willing to do some pretty extreme stuff if you're going to keep up with the competition.
So, if you really want to be a PornGod, here's my advice. First, move to L.A. -- there's a lot more "talent" (ha!) to be had for a lot less dough. Learn some basic studio photography, then shell out a couple grand for a prosumer digital camera and some strobes. Rent a studio someplace that's easy to get to by public transportation (bus, train, whatever). Or, make friends with a photographer that's already established and shares your enthusiasm for naked chicks and doesn't mind ruining his professional career (i.e., his day job). That's not to say that your name will get dragged through the mud if you go into porn, but it's a risk.
Once you've got that, set up a website with a host that won't boot you for hosting porn. Set up your site, plan what kind of market you're aiming at, and start filling it with stuff you find on USENET. Yes, it's not really legal, but if there's no (c) on the picture, and you're still small-time, you can consider it fair game. Now comes the fun part...
Head down to your local strip club. You're not going for a lap dance, so try and be professional and curteous. Really look at the girls -- don't just oggle their nakedness. If you don't see anyone that catches your eye, move on to the next place. Try to remain as objective as you can (it gets easier the more you do it). If you find a couple of girls you like, approach them after a routine when they're walking around the club. Tell them your name, what you would like to use them for, and hand them a business card. Look at her eyes, not her tits, and you're more likely to be taken seriously. Tell them how much you're paying for a shoot, and ask them to pass along the information to anyone they think might be interested.
Don't engage them in a long conversation, since they're technically on the clock and y
When you try and uninstall programs that are "integral to the OS" (WMP, Explorer, Outlook Express!) all it does is remove the links that are on your desktop/start menu. It does not delete the files, however.
I love to see both sexes taking an active part in open source development. Particularly when it's ladies like this.
Or do the developers just like hanging out in #SaucyTeens chat rooms?