The good thing about GPS is it tells you where the cameras are, not the limits. I don't want to stick to a limit with no cameras in it, what would be the point in that? I used to get nicked for speeding once a year, but since I got the GPS almost a decade ago, no tickets at all.
What we need is to remove all speed limits and allow drivers to choose their own speed. Wimps like you can drive safely, and people with more guts can go really fast and have fun.
They're criminals, why do you care about them at all? Remove them from society so they can't endanger us, just kill them. It's cheapest (or would be if there weren't so many thieving lawyers about). There is no need for a death penalty case to take any more time or money than a life imprisonment case. Sure, you'll get the odd one wrong, but they're a very small percentage. The cost of keeping the CRIMINALS in jail for the rest of their life just has to be absurd.
An alternative for the treehuggers who don't want to kill guilty criminals, is to make them work to earn their keep. Give them all the jobs nobody else wants to do. Bring back chain gangs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
USA: 1 in 30,000 people EVERY YEAR are killed in homicides with guns.
UK: a hundredth of that.
How can you read those stats and think everyone having a gun is a good thing? Any idiot with a gun could get pissed off with a friend/neighbour/someone who cut them up on the highway and kill them.
No, the centre 9th of the photo contains only dress, and both colours of it. So I'd expect it to balance this correctly. If I take a photo of a dark object in a brightly lit room like that, I either get the object looking correct, or too DARK because the camera is trying to get the bright room to look right. I can only surmise that the photographer used an Iphone or some such crap. I've never seen a camera make such an arse of a photo.
Cameras don't meter on a very small spot like that. Usually it's the centre 9th (one third width, one third height) of the whole photo. Either that or it takes account of the whole photo in a clever way.
Maybe so, but that wasn't obvious from looking at the photo. To me the background was too bright, an indication that the camera has metered on the dress and left the background to get too bright.
It's not obviously over exposed at all. The camera could have had spot metering and exposed the dress correctly, while overexposing the background. This is the right way to take a photo, so you see the subject properly.
What have the manufacturers of the dress to do with anything? It's the CAMERA that got the colours wrong, and it's common knowledge that cameras are not as good as humans at white balance.
Slashdot Mirror
The good thing about GPS is it tells you where the cameras are, not the limits. I don't want to stick to a limit with no cameras in it, what would be the point in that? I used to get nicked for speeding once a year, but since I got the GPS almost a decade ago, no tickets at all.
What we need is to remove all speed limits and allow drivers to choose their own speed. Wimps like you can drive safely, and people with more guts can go really fast and have fun.
Don't you have a sense of humour? I haven't laughed as hard in ages, it was a brilliant practical joke.
I suspect he read the post as "in MY house".
They're criminals, why do you care about them at all? Remove them from society so they can't endanger us, just kill them. It's cheapest (or would be if there weren't so many thieving lawyers about). There is no need for a death penalty case to take any more time or money than a life imprisonment case. Sure, you'll get the odd one wrong, but they're a very small percentage. The cost of keeping the CRIMINALS in jail for the rest of their life just has to be absurd. An alternative for the treehuggers who don't want to kill guilty criminals, is to make them work to earn their keep. Give them all the jobs nobody else wants to do. Bring back chain gangs.
Agreed, the FAA are being childish and pedantic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... USA: 1 in 30,000 people EVERY YEAR are killed in homicides with guns. UK: a hundredth of that. How can you read those stats and think everyone having a gun is a good thing? Any idiot with a gun could get pissed off with a friend/neighbour/someone who cut them up on the highway and kill them.
Do you actually have a point?
Do they state where the wallet code is stored? A physical address perhaps? "Under the floorboards of Mr Smiths house"?
No, me chauvanist, you feminist. Read properly dimwit.
ROFL @ your square brackets
So what was the problem with it not being recognised? Sorry, Slashdot doesn't show further back than one level in the conversation.
Stop standing up for the weaker stupider sex.
It's just different. Muslims think we're wrong to uncover our faces.
To whoever moderated my comment, why assume someone with the opposite opinion to you is a troll? How childish.
They're not less grown up than us, they're DIFFERENT to us. Why does everyone have to be the same?
The whole feminist movement is a joke. They want to be treated equal, but only when it suits them.
America really still requires marriage? You don't have registry offices then? Has to be done in a church even if you're an atheist?
Doesn't America have a fre tax band? In the UK we only pay tax if we earn over $1000 a month.
Without the wallet, there are no coins. Ergo the coins are hidden.
No, the centre 9th of the photo contains only dress, and both colours of it. So I'd expect it to balance this correctly. If I take a photo of a dark object in a brightly lit room like that, I either get the object looking correct, or too DARK because the camera is trying to get the bright room to look right. I can only surmise that the photographer used an Iphone or some such crap. I've never seen a camera make such an arse of a photo.
Cameras don't meter on a very small spot like that. Usually it's the centre 9th (one third width, one third height) of the whole photo. Either that or it takes account of the whole photo in a clever way.
Maybe so, but that wasn't obvious from looking at the photo. To me the background was too bright, an indication that the camera has metered on the dress and left the background to get too bright.
It's not obviously over exposed at all. The camera could have had spot metering and exposed the dress correctly, while overexposing the background. This is the right way to take a photo, so you see the subject properly.
What have the manufacturers of the dress to do with anything? It's the CAMERA that got the colours wrong, and it's common knowledge that cameras are not as good as humans at white balance.