Nearly all SLRs are insensitive to IR light when recording
Ummm, from what I can tell, most SLRs are sensitive to IR light.
Several months back, I used my Nikon DSLR to trouble shoot my remote control by taking a picture of it and confirming I could see the glow. From there I could look elsewhere.
My understanding is that internally, many cameras use IR, and are therefore very sensitive to it.
and its pretty sad when Fox has better Scif-Fi on than the Sy-Fy channel
It may be sad for Sy-Fy, but I'm personally glad to see that decent sc-fi is actually being made and that people don't just keep not understanding the audience.
As soon as you start having something poking holes through your firewall to allow inbound traffic, this is pretty much a predictable outcome.
The internet of things, smart home monitoring, and thermostats you can adjust from the web... all of these are things which are going to cause security problems, because most companies doing these kinds of things seem to completely ignore security, or when they try, still do a piss poor job.
I view the whole thing as a big "what did you expect?".
Target's management allegedly 'brushed them off.' 'At least one analyst at the Minneapolis-based retailer wanted to do a more thorough security review of its payment system.'
See, this is the problem with companies like Target not having legal liability for such things.
Because if they were legally responsible for it, they couldn't just brush it off, do nothing, and then let millions of credit cards get compromised.
To me, the company should be paying a huge fine for what can really only be called indifference to security. If you can't safeguard our financial information, you should be penalized.
Otherwise there's never any incentive for them to give a damn.
No, but when you say "beyond the RIAA" you make it sound like independent entities are pushing the same thing.
For purpose of these kinds of laws, there is no 'beyond the RIAA', just the domestic proxies who have standing to lobby for it in the country.
But since they're usually funded by, and essentially fronts for, the RIAA -- essentially we see multinationals promoting laws around the world favorable to them, and occasionally backed up by the US government who does the same thing through trade agreements and threats of retaliation.
Hey may not, but there's a bunch of punk bands and the like which probably do. I discovered psychobilly from the cool CD cover art, and subsequently have found several bands I really like because I can tell right away what kind of music it is because of the cover art.
I've discovered more music I've never been exposed to from rooting around in CD stores than I would otherwise, and I've spiraled back and gotten stuff I missed when I was younger.
But when I buy the CD and rip it, I don't need their permission to listen to it, I don't need some crappy app they wrote, I don't have to pay them again, I don't get tracked when I use it... and the middle-men can pound sand.
Bands like NoFX still put out CDs too. And they're not members of the RIAA, despite the RIAA occasionally forgetting that and claiming otherwise.
The conservative government's George Brandis wants to force ISPs to block sites that might infringe copyright.
And since all sites 'might' or 'could' infringe copyright, the demand is only to get to an approved list operated by the media companies for everything, but further entrenching their revenue stream -- because then they'll know all ad content and subscription services belong to them.
These clowns are destroying the internet, and the rights of everyone in order to ensure their rights could never possibly be violated.
And I fear there's no sign of governments pushing back and telling them to piss up a rope.
With record profits, and laws being passed in their favor all over the world ( beyond just the RIAA but the entire industry ), it would be hard to convince them they are destroying their business.
Oh, make no mistake about it. The RIAA has actively funded these initiatives (and in a few cases been the ones to write the laws on behalf of the US government)
The entities pushing this in other countries are so closely affiliated with the RIAA as to make them more or less a cartel which act as if they're not all taking orders from the same place.
And they will do anything it takes to ensure that technology and copyright law are kept closely under their control. Which is why nobody else can make money streaming music.
To the American athlete's credit, they have been downplaying the suit's impact and giving credit to the winners.
But, surely the athletes trained in these suits, right? I mean, would you show up to something like the Olympics in gear that's only been tested in a wind tunnel?
If they were going to be slower in them, you'd think that would be fairly obvious in practice.
Suits or no suits, they still didn't beat the other teams. So, you pretty much have to give them credit for actually winning.
Another possibility would be for a larger company to purchase the music service or for the service to begin offering sanitized user behavioral data to advertisers, who could then better target a customer base.
Or, I will stick with my current strategy -- buy physical CDs, rip them to MP3, and listen to them wherever the hell I want... and you don't get to sell my sanitized behavior to advertisers.
Tech workers do have a slightly higher percentage of people who have never married -- 26.7% of IT workers and 31.9% of scientists -- but they also have slightly fewer divorces.
Right, but it's entirely based on understanding the biology as it exists on planet Earth. And is how we would try to identify life similar to ours on other planets.
Now, tell me, what do we look for with, say, silicon based life forms or anything which has a completely different chemistry than ours?
The answer... we haven't got the faintest idea, and therefore we can't look for it, because it would be pure speculation, and therefore not 'science'.
Unless you can tell us the chemical signatures/indicators of life based on different elements than our own, there is no way to search for them. And, until we've encountered it and understood it, we have no basis on which to look for it based on its properties, because we don't know those properties.
But if they're based on silicon, breath cyanide gas, and fart out helium, and make xenon gas when they have sex... we'll never know it unless we've already met them. (And, yes, that's a completely arbitrary list.;-)
Always looking for water looking for life, or where the 6 building blocks for life as we know it could form.
That's what we know and it makes sense, but there are surely other types of life that have different building blocks.
You know, someone asks more or less this exact question every time this topic comes up -- "why not look for other forms of life unlike our own?".
And the answer is always the same -- how do you look for something you don't know the first thing about? What do you look for? How do you look for a lifeform which has completely different biology from us? How will you know if you've found it?
If you're physically there, you can look and see. If you're doing inference from spectroscopy and the like, what, exactly, do you look for to find a bit of life which is so alien from our own that we don't have any idea of what to look for or what processes would be involved?
You can't just take random chemicals and decide that they do, or do not, suggest a lifeform we can't even imagine.
It's simply not possible to look for signs of something when you have no basis on which to even speculate what those signs would be -- because you could look at anything and say "gee, maybe that's alien life".
But you'll never know, and can never make any hypotheses or predictions. At which point, you're well outside of what can be called Science, and straight back to speculative fiction. There's really no point in trying to look for life built around other building blocks, because we don't know anything about what that hypothetical lifeform would look like or how to spot it.
I'm not saying it couldn't exist. I'm saying that until we know about it and how it works, there's no basis to look for it.
Ill note you didnt answer the question of "how many people actually have it".
The hell I didn't.
The second link provides statistics on how many people with the various types by births and was identified as such.
I'll note that you didn't read the links. But if you need it spoon fed to you:
Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births Klinefelter (XXY) one in 1,000 births Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals Vaginal agenesis one in 6,000 births Ovotestes one in 83,000 births Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause) one in 110,000 births Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother) no estimate 5 alpha reductase deficiency no estimate Mixed gonadal dysgenesis no estimate Complete gonadal dysgenesis one in 150,000 births Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft) one in 2,000 births Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis) one in 770 births Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births Total number of people receiving surgery to "normalize" genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births
Rick Webb has an article suggesting we're in the nascent stages of transforming to a post-scarcity economy â" one in which we are 'no longer constrained by scarcity of materialsâ"food, energy, shelter, etc.
In what way are we going into a post scarcity economy? In what way have we eliminated scarcity of resources and arrived at a place where we can put them anywhere we need whenever we like?
Sorry, but Star Trek went post-scarcity because they had limitless energy, and the ability to create whatever forms of matter they needed, and more or less obviated the need for money and the like. When you can replicate enough food, shelter, and everything you need for people to survive, that is post-scarcity.
We are nowhere near this 'post scarcity' thing he's talking about. Not even close. We have finite resources, pollution, and a very highly unequal distribution of those resources as well as access to them.
The simplified version is that sex is biological, whereas gender is cultural/social. It's not a difficult distinction.
Except that some people don't feel that their gender matches their biology, and never have. To them, the plumbing has no relation to their identify as they experience it.
I'm pretty sure I don't want to know the answer to this, but what exactly is "ambiguous genitalia" and how many people actually have it?
It's called intersexed, and here is some stats and more information on it. For years, doctors would just say "well, we can't tell, so take your pick boy or girl, and then the kid grows up and says 'WTF?' " because it was an arbitrary choice.
For some people, gender identity is a little more complicated than "penis or no penis" -- I've known a couple of trans people over the years, and once had a co-worker who began the process after I'd known him as 'he' for several years.
Trust me, nobody would go through all of that stuff (the reaction of people, the hormones, the discrimination, the cost, the upheaval to your life, the surgeries, people telling you you're going through a phase) unless they were REALLY certain that was what they needed.
I won't claim to understand it fully, or even be able to explain it well. But I do know these are real things, and that the people going through them have to deal with a lot of stuff which I sure as hell wouldn't wish on anybody.
Allowing Internet connectivity reduces the centralized control that a totalitarian Communist system requires in order to protect the leaders and the system itself from the inconvenience of reality.
Whereas in other countries we apparently use distributed control in order to protect the leaders and the system from the inconvenience of reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, from what I can tell, most SLRs are sensitive to IR light.
Several months back, I used my Nikon DSLR to trouble shoot my remote control by taking a picture of it and confirming I could see the glow. From there I could look elsewhere.
My understanding is that internally, many cameras use IR, and are therefore very sensitive to it.
It may be sad for Sy-Fy, but I'm personally glad to see that decent sc-fi is actually being made and that people don't just keep not understanding the audience.
As soon as you start having something poking holes through your firewall to allow inbound traffic, this is pretty much a predictable outcome.
The internet of things, smart home monitoring, and thermostats you can adjust from the web ... all of these are things which are going to cause security problems, because most companies doing these kinds of things seem to completely ignore security, or when they try, still do a piss poor job.
I view the whole thing as a big "what did you expect?".
Sensible, no.
It sounds like they want to be able to monitor the bus, and maybe they consider the decor to be copyrighted or something.
Essentially they want to be able to record you, while not allowing you to take pics.
See, this is the problem with companies like Target not having legal liability for such things.
Because if they were legally responsible for it, they couldn't just brush it off, do nothing, and then let millions of credit cards get compromised.
To me, the company should be paying a huge fine for what can really only be called indifference to security. If you can't safeguard our financial information, you should be penalized.
Otherwise there's never any incentive for them to give a damn.
No, but when you say "beyond the RIAA" you make it sound like independent entities are pushing the same thing.
For purpose of these kinds of laws, there is no 'beyond the RIAA', just the domestic proxies who have standing to lobby for it in the country.
But since they're usually funded by, and essentially fronts for, the RIAA -- essentially we see multinationals promoting laws around the world favorable to them, and occasionally backed up by the US government who does the same thing through trade agreements and threats of retaliation.
Hey may not, but there's a bunch of punk bands and the like which probably do. I discovered psychobilly from the cool CD cover art, and subsequently have found several bands I really like because I can tell right away what kind of music it is because of the cover art.
I've discovered more music I've never been exposed to from rooting around in CD stores than I would otherwise, and I've spiraled back and gotten stuff I missed when I was younger.
But when I buy the CD and rip it, I don't need their permission to listen to it, I don't need some crappy app they wrote, I don't have to pay them again, I don't get tracked when I use it ... and the middle-men can pound sand.
Bands like NoFX still put out CDs too. And they're not members of the RIAA, despite the RIAA occasionally forgetting that and claiming otherwise.
And since all sites 'might' or 'could' infringe copyright, the demand is only to get to an approved list operated by the media companies for everything, but further entrenching their revenue stream -- because then they'll know all ad content and subscription services belong to them.
These clowns are destroying the internet, and the rights of everyone in order to ensure their rights could never possibly be violated.
And I fear there's no sign of governments pushing back and telling them to piss up a rope.
Does one person a line make? I think not.
It may well be the fault of the suits. They still didn't win.
And belly aching that your fancy high tech suits didn't work doesn't change anything.
Oh, make no mistake about it. The RIAA has actively funded these initiatives (and in a few cases been the ones to write the laws on behalf of the US government)
The entities pushing this in other countries are so closely affiliated with the RIAA as to make them more or less a cartel which act as if they're not all taking orders from the same place.
And they will do anything it takes to ensure that technology and copyright law are kept closely under their control. Which is why nobody else can make money streaming music.
But, surely the athletes trained in these suits, right? I mean, would you show up to something like the Olympics in gear that's only been tested in a wind tunnel?
If they were going to be slower in them, you'd think that would be fairly obvious in practice.
Suits or no suits, they still didn't beat the other teams. So, you pretty much have to give them credit for actually winning.
Or, I will stick with my current strategy -- buy physical CDs, rip them to MP3, and listen to them wherever the hell I want ... and you don't get to sell my sanitized behavior to advertisers.
It's been working quite well for me so far.
Judging by the number of condoms they bought, plenty of that is happening already. :-P
So, do whatever everybody else does ... rent porn, order pizza and drink scotch.
Or, is that just me?
I hope my wife is OK with that, because it's probably too late to go looking for flowers. ;-)
LOL .. do you read Slashdot at all?
Because I would say most of us are suffering from "asshole syndrome" instead of "nice guy syndrome".
Curmudgeon seems more common than courteous -- and, yes, I am told I mostly fall into the former category.
Bah, like all engineers, he was going for empirical evidence instead of a theoretical model. ;-)
LOL, yeah, that about sums it up.
Right, but it's entirely based on understanding the biology as it exists on planet Earth. And is how we would try to identify life similar to ours on other planets.
Now, tell me, what do we look for with, say, silicon based life forms or anything which has a completely different chemistry than ours?
The answer ... we haven't got the faintest idea, and therefore we can't look for it, because it would be pure speculation, and therefore not 'science'.
Unless you can tell us the chemical signatures/indicators of life based on different elements than our own, there is no way to search for them. And, until we've encountered it and understood it, we have no basis on which to look for it based on its properties, because we don't know those properties.
But if they're based on silicon, breath cyanide gas, and fart out helium, and make xenon gas when they have sex ... we'll never know it unless we've already met them. (And, yes, that's a completely arbitrary list. ;-)
You know, someone asks more or less this exact question every time this topic comes up -- "why not look for other forms of life unlike our own?".
And the answer is always the same -- how do you look for something you don't know the first thing about? What do you look for? How do you look for a lifeform which has completely different biology from us? How will you know if you've found it?
If you're physically there, you can look and see. If you're doing inference from spectroscopy and the like, what, exactly, do you look for to find a bit of life which is so alien from our own that we don't have any idea of what to look for or what processes would be involved?
You can't just take random chemicals and decide that they do, or do not, suggest a lifeform we can't even imagine.
It's simply not possible to look for signs of something when you have no basis on which to even speculate what those signs would be -- because you could look at anything and say "gee, maybe that's alien life".
But you'll never know, and can never make any hypotheses or predictions. At which point, you're well outside of what can be called Science, and straight back to speculative fiction. There's really no point in trying to look for life built around other building blocks, because we don't know anything about what that hypothetical lifeform would look like or how to spot it.
I'm not saying it couldn't exist. I'm saying that until we know about it and how it works, there's no basis to look for it.
The hell I didn't.
The second link provides statistics on how many people with the various types by births and was identified as such.
I'll note that you didn't read the links. But if you need it spoon fed to you:
In what way are we going into a post scarcity economy? In what way have we eliminated scarcity of resources and arrived at a place where we can put them anywhere we need whenever we like?
Sorry, but Star Trek went post-scarcity because they had limitless energy, and the ability to create whatever forms of matter they needed, and more or less obviated the need for money and the like. When you can replicate enough food, shelter, and everything you need for people to survive, that is post-scarcity.
We are nowhere near this 'post scarcity' thing he's talking about. Not even close. We have finite resources, pollution, and a very highly unequal distribution of those resources as well as access to them.
Except that some people don't feel that their gender matches their biology, and never have. To them, the plumbing has no relation to their identify as they experience it.
And then it becomes much more complicated.
It's called intersexed, and here is some stats and more information on it. For years, doctors would just say "well, we can't tell, so take your pick boy or girl, and then the kid grows up and says 'WTF?' " because it was an arbitrary choice.
For some people, gender identity is a little more complicated than "penis or no penis" -- I've known a couple of trans people over the years, and once had a co-worker who began the process after I'd known him as 'he' for several years.
Trust me, nobody would go through all of that stuff (the reaction of people, the hormones, the discrimination, the cost, the upheaval to your life, the surgeries, people telling you you're going through a phase) unless they were REALLY certain that was what they needed.
I won't claim to understand it fully, or even be able to explain it well. But I do know these are real things, and that the people going through them have to deal with a lot of stuff which I sure as hell wouldn't wish on anybody.
Whereas in other countries we apparently use distributed control in order to protect the leaders and the system from the inconvenience of reality.