really, others -will-, for whatever reason. Perhaps it's a $100 discount given on their treatment if they allow their info to be shared with google - perhaps it's free medication for a month... who knows, who cares, others -will- participate.
And then what happens? Say your dad participates. Google now has info on your dad. They find that he has a heart condition, and that this is hereditary. Google also knows about you. It knows through social networking that your dad is, well, your dad. Now insurance companies *may* (just because Google is not governed by HIPAA, doesn't mean they'll hand it out - nor does HIPAA prevent medical records from being 'oops' stolen).. know that... 1. Your dad has a hereditary heart condition 2. You're his son. Ergo... 3. You may have this condition as well.
You think the insurance agency would do nothing with this? Hum.
---
Or, more broadly (and this can be a very interesting aspect of google health in general)... Say that in your area, there's a 25% higher chance to develop lung cancer; as visualized on Google Health/Maps. It doesn't matter, then, that you never participated - you live in that area, ergo. This is already done with, say, crime statistics - charging you more for car insurance if cars tend to get stolen with some frequency in your area - it would be very naive to think that health statistics would not do the same.
And so forth. And so on.
Though most of the above the insurance agencies can already do anyway - google's just making it a heck of a lot easier for them.
"things they have been able to do since they bought their first VCR recorder 25 years ago."
MacroVision ACP, anyone? Yes, you can easily filter that out with a little box you buy for a couple of bucks if you're affected by it, but you're definitely viewing things a bit too rose-colored on the whole copy-protection front if you think that this sort of thing is new.
Nobody is blaming Aviv for the existence of the bug. Nobody is blaming Aviv for telling people about the bug.
We *might* be blaming Aviv for telling the world, script kiddies and botnet operators alike, about this bug -before- even notifying the manufacturer of the crap product.
Nor did Aviv wait a reasonable time period for the manufacturer to admit their product's crap state and issue either A. a warning of their own (don't print links) or B. a fix, while providing full credit for discovering the bug to Aviv. Aviv could then still parade his bragging rights around, disclose the exact details, provide proof-of-concept and generally be admired for re-affirming the notion that the product is crap and telling the world in a responsible manner.
Yes, I know, in the time that Aviv would be waiting for the manufacturer to issue a warning / a fix, there could be *others* who also have figured out this vulnerability, and could be actively using it, perhaps on your computer right now! don't look! But given the odds of maybe a handful of people using this for targeted operations vs thousands of script kiddies at work, I'll take my chances with that handful of people in that time period.
Oh, and I consider 3 days to be sufficient a time period for any manufacturer to respond, so anybody who felt like showing how it sometimes takes a manufacturer YEARS before fixing things can just bugger off. I have nothing against disclosure if the manufacturer takes too long - forcing their hand may be the best thing. But having them caught off-guard and scrambling by flat-out announcing it to the world is far more irresponsible than the alternative.
What if you off yourself? No thanks, I'll stay the heck away from calling you -anything- after this indictment decision.
And yes, I fully realize that what happened in the article's case is far more severe than calling a person a troll on Slashdot.
On the other hand, the girl also didn't go through the steps of blocking the user, reporting the user to MySpace or going to court to get the equivalent of a restraining order (as a sibling poster pointed out, we have such things for stalkers.. but you do still need to take action yourself to get one). My sympathies to the family and loved ones, my disgust unto the women (sorry, Ms. Grills, but I don't think you should get away from this relatively unscathed) who drove the girl to see only one solution to this, and my middle finger to MySpace for not doing much in the way of anything to educate their users that there -are- many, many options of dealing with this including legal routes. To be named a victim in this case must bring a very unpleasant and awkward feeling in the gut of the powers-that-be there.
Back to my point... -I- don't know what might send a user over the edge, so no troll mod for you.
However, just the "render a hemicube" bit is 'expensive' in its own right - this isn't a hemicube for some localized lighting effects that can be done in very low resolution - you need to do this in high enough a resolution that you don't get severe smearing at the peripheries. Don't get me wrong, if a game runs at 90fps (wtf) and with this it'll run at 40fps.. I, for one, won't care. But many gamers seem to... or they don't want to sacrifice particle effects / whatever.
Then on top of this comes post-effects which would need re-mapping to the polar coordinates. Whee.
Like I said, it's doable, but it's expensive. Doing this directly in the vector->screen stage is much cheaper.. but you have to add this in hardware first. It will be done, just not now:)
...you can't prove there isn't one. Neither can they prove that there is. They may argue that it's likely, but whatever.
However, it's also one of the pitfalls. They're not 100% stupid and I wouldn't put it past them to say "okay, then you won't mind if I zero out all the stuff that you claim doesn't have any data". That wouldn't take particularly long, so what is your defense going to be?
However, I don't know if they can actually write data to your machine; I think the current provisions are read-only? whatever.
Really, we used to - this has been some time ago - have new front page posts about a particularly popular topic and have some of the most insightful comments, often from differing views, rehashed as a starting point for a far more interesting comments thread than the original story's (with dozens of trolls, flamebaits, ill-informed comments, etc. often based on just the title or summary).
But where the heck did it go? Did the 'editors' realize that "whew boy, this sure is hard work!"? I never found any information on why it seems to have suddenly just stopped dead. Maybe I missed a comment from an 'editor' somewhere in an unrelated thread, perhaps it's under some catch-all in the FAQ (it's not listed as a section in the "What are the sections for?" item). What I do know is: I miss it.
Even if an egg is fertilized by a sperm, there are a thousands of things that can go wrong that would cause it to just never divide, divide wrongly and get auto-aborted, not settle to the lining in the womb and get auto-aborted, nevermind complications further down the road that could cause a late auto-abortion or a stillborn delivery. At which point are any of the above examples ever a life?
Without defining 'life' we can't really define whether something had a potential for life in the first place... if you define 'a fertilized egg' as being 'life', then you -must- also say that every egg has a potential for life as long as it gets fertilized. We're not fertilizing every egg (thank goodness), so are we in effect denying millions of potential lives every day simply by a woman having her period instead of sitting around pregnant? ( Can't really fault the men for not using every single sperm on an egg, the ratio of eggs to sperm is just entirely too low to justify that. ) The GP was being funny more than serious, but when it comes down to it - you have to accept that there's a core truth to the funniness.
Then again, you asked in another comment how somebody would feel being the result of a science experiment and I really do hope that the child commenter pointing out in-vitro fertilization has been modded +5 Insightful by the time I press Submit on this comment.
...although it might be possible with a pixel shader, the hardware would really need to support other projection types than just standard 3-point (and with some hacking the transformation matrix, 2-point) perspective.
For a dome projection, you essentially need a linear fisheye projection out of the card, and the cards just don't do that.
You could do it in software, render a hemicube in the buffer, use a pixel shader to map the appropriate pixels onto the circle, done. Except that to get to 'done', you have to go through some very expensive (in terms of performance drop) steps.
Because that's when the existence of the vulnerability was already known, at least. The people who figured it out aren't telling the world how to do it (I'm sure clever people can figure it out), and are / were waiting for Google to fix it first.
You might be seeing plain ol' spam from gmail; it's been having its share of problems with spammers since both captcha crack -and- before that by manual sign-up, simply -because- everybody trusted gmail (what, with the forced SMS/Text Message sign-up, invite-only, etc. preceding).
Heck, if anything, those codecs should focus on higher quality output first; higher compression be damned. I hate seeing the blocky artifacts from any non-lossless video compression. I don't mind that they're only 8bpc, video and film noise tends to kill any banding issues anyway.. until they don't anymore, I won't worry about 10bpc, 16bpc or even 32bpc video encoding.
However... this is in collaboration with DreamWorks. This isn't about your typical DVD or Blu-Ray disc. This is about displaying things like digital intermediate files - from film scans (often done at 10bpc) right through whatever bitdepth pipeline in use for the project (16bpc or 32bpc being common), to the filmprint which again is done at a higher bitdepth than 8bpc. Even digital cinema is ready for higher bitdepths and if you google around a bit, you'll find several proposals for how to handle it efficiently (sizes do increase quite a bit with bitdepth, whereas a film roll will always be the size of 1 (one) filmroll.. whether the image is exposed/etched from an 8bpc digital or a 32bpc digital)
This will trickle down to consumers as well, however - especially photographers who are muttering about quantization artifacts (banding) in subtle gradients like, oh, the sky when taken with a high quality camera (i.e. low sensor noise).. taking a RAW will deal with that on the camera end, but they still end up displaying it back on your 8bpc monitor at the moment (unless they already have a 10bpc display - as I said in another comment.. this is not new; see SGI )
Re:Come back after you've turned off anti-aliasing
on
A Billion-Color Display
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Displays can already do a much higher DPI - some handhelds with 3" screens can do 800x600. That's 2.4" along the length, for 800dots/2.4" = 333.33333etc. DPI.
However, imagine a full size 17" widescreen (16:10) at a DPI of 300. 17" is about 14.4" wide by 9" high. 14.4*300 = 4320, 9*300 = 2700. A 4320x2700 display? Crikey. I'm sure we'll get there eventually, but at the resolution rate we're currently seeing - not for some time aside from high end displays.
Mod parent (or his sibling) up... however,...
on
A Billion-Color Display
·
· Score: 5, Informative
They're absolutely right that CMYK does not encompass RGB. They overlap for a large part, and don't overlap in small areas (with one larger area in the deep vivid cyans).
However, a larger bitdepth doesn't do anything for color space. It simply determines the granularity of that color space. If with 16 bit you get 65,536 individual colors within the RGB gamut (with slightly higher granularity in the green channel, typically), and with 24bit you get 16,777,216 individual possible colors within the RGB gamut, then with 30 bit (10 bit per channel; it's not new, really), you get 1,073,741,824 individual possible colors... but still within the RGB gamut (of the device at hand).
An HDR display (either by using a very bright backlight or more localized LED backlights control, etc.) also doesn't change the gamut of that device - it simply allows for much brighter values of them.
Now, if they were to make an LCD panel that aside from the R,G,B pixel elements also had C M Y pixel elements, then you most certainly could increase the gamut. It would also be much more difficult to switch to than a simple bitdepth change.
...though I don't think it's a mousedown javascript. Rather, a javascript - or something - sets the browser status bar to the correct site - but when you actually click the link...
For example 1. go to www.google.com 2. search for "slashdot" 3. hover over the very first link 3-1: The status bar reads "http://slashdot.org" 4. right-click on the link 4-1: The status bar changes to reflect the actual URL 5. Copy the link location 6. Paste it somewhere 6-1. The actual URL turns out to be: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fslashdot.org%2F&ei=GARBLE&usg=MOREGARBLE ( 'weird' stuff substituted - who knows wtf that information is )
I'm pretty sure they didn't do this in the past, as I remembered looking at the source of the page and thinking "that is some lean html right there". Now, however.. they must be wasting gigabytes a day thanks to links like that. But I suppose they can afford it, and for them it's a nice metric to see which links got clicked, etc.
I'm pretty sure that picketing outside some local MPAA/RIAA/whathaveyou office is going to have absolutely zero effect, unless you manage to get a few hundred people - I suppose you might get on the local/regional news.
Donating to the EFF might help in defending against frivolous lawsuits against individuals (amicable briefs and such), and that's laudable, but that's not quite what we need in this case either.
So, where do I go to find a party that will take on the MPAA/RIAA/the law* and say "It ends here. These sites do not host illegal material, they do not make it available, they merely tell you where to get it - and that in itself is not illegal*." ?
(* to note - that actually -is- illegal in some nations, so the actual law would have to be changed.. which is a long and difficult road especially when faced with an extremely wealthy lobby wanting such a law in place and kept in place )
especially if you can make them really, really tiny but still 'legible' (often requiring context of nearby letters, granted). I made one - it's used in graphics and licensed by one party for print ('read the fineprint' takes on a whole new meaning when the font is baseline 3 pixels tall.)
Other than that, pixel fonts are still routinely used in games - simply because rendering a vector font is more expensive than rendering a sprite.
off-topic With my girl (yes, I know - I don't exist) and besides - Isla Fisher is in it.. what more could I want?:D (other than perhaps Isla Fisher and Sandra Bullock in one movie (no, not that kind of movie - perverts.)
I'll get the wtf out of the way first "Given that applying zebra striping in an electronic medium is a nontrivial task"
Say what? Any application that is based on columns and/or rows has trivial access to those columns/rows as separate entities. Markup for such columns/rows is easily changed. 'mod N 2 == 0? grey:white' is hardly nontrivial, it's so basic that if you can't manage to do it, you must be using the wrong software.
---
Now for the scope - it seems like the only research they have done is when data in the sheet is dense and the sheet itself is not all that wide.
Now try with a wide sheet and instead of every 'cell' or at least one of its close neighbors having data in it, imagine lots of empty cells. Now try and see if zebrastriping helps or not. I can guarantee you that without any visual cues, your lining up of something in the leftmost column to the same line on the rightmost column is going to fail far more often than you'd like.
--
Oh wait, they even admit as much: "However, there is clearly a need for additional studies to investigate how task difficulty and the size of the table/form influence the effect of zebra striping."
No shit. I'm glad you admitted that your sample size is too low.
So now that humankind is capable of dealing with large numbers and such quite easily (and I think it's odd to think that civilization back then would have a hard time understanding 'billions of years' but nodded at 'and the water turned into wine' as if that was perfectly reasonable), is there any edition of The Bible (presumably unofficial) that has everything re-written in the "what it meant to say, but us puny humans wouldn't have understood back in the day, is..."?
To hook into your sibling poster's comment... a presumably 'non-fictional' work, that indeed could be taken literally (whether the statements within be true or false left aside)?
I'm curious - why must he be an atheist if he rejects the idea of a God that would leave people in an apparent state of deception (from GP poster's point of view)?
He could just as easily believe in a different God, or multiple Gods, or etc. which to him/her is truthful in every way.
Or he could be agnostic, saying that there may very well be a God, or multiple gods, but that he doesn't believe that the God described in OP is the kind of God he would choose to believe in.
--
As for the 26 words... I know human beings more benevolent and loving like that. I, for one, don't need the love of a random stranger in order for me to help them in any which way I can if I concern myself with their person. Put differently, from the perspective of somebody who were not to believe in 'God', what would 'God' have done for them that would have him deserve their love? On the up side - those who don't believe in God typically don't believe in Hell and all that, and probably couldn't care less about what God thinks and demands, as it becomes a moot issue.
I'm asking because I'm thinking that Speed Racer is primarily a U.S. childhood memory keepsake.
I've seen the trailer pass by before various movies four times now (10,000 BC, Definitely Maybe, Reservation Road, The Spiderwick Chronicles - a pretty spread out mix of audiences), and all four times the audience's response ranged from "wtf is speed racer?" to "what's with the awful effects?". Somehow I can't see any of the audience here (NL) to be immediately drawn into the movie thanks to the lack of growing up with Speed Racer, and the trailer showing a minimum of story and mostly oddly-composited (I guess it's a "visual style") live action/CG doesn't exactly help to lure people in based on the visuals.
So what has audience response been in other countries?
It's not that ugly of a hack, I've seen it implemented before.
The 'at the moment of switchover' is overrated - if you take a regular toggle switch from a power strip and switch that to off and back on real quick-like, nothing modern attached to it is going to just shut off. That's 10s of milliseconds between on -> off -> on again. A (relay) switch that toggles between grid and net is 1. much faster than human action and 2. only goes on (net) on (grid). If you -are- worried about this type of thing, just get a line regulator..tons of those around.
The real tricks are in... 1. Splitting up your home net into subgroups so that you have the lightest bits on one group, and heavier bits on another group. 2. Getting a supply/demand switch so that if demand from a groups together is too high for your home net, it will switch that group to the grid. The supply from your home net that would still be enough for the lighter group(s) would still power those.
1. Is not required, but saves you the bit where you have energy that isn't used and can't be stored in battery (full?) as it'll still use it for the lower requirement devices. It does make setup much more complex, however, especially if you're going to be using your existing wiring (a blender and a coffee machine are likely to end up in the same group, physically, as they're in the kitchen - but the blender draws much more energy than the coffee machine).
2. If 1. is ditched, then these switches are available at the better DIY stores. They're commonly found in power strips where a 'master' socket controls slave sockets; if draw from the master drops below a certain threshold, the slaves are powered off automatically.
Note that #2 automatically deals with things like low wind (wind energy), low sunlight (solar) and low battery (presuming you're storing surplus energy during the day), so that you don't have to worry about light sensors or timered switches for bedtime/wake-up.
I've seen it implemented in a warehouse, so they could easily do all their own wiring in ugly conduits and whatnot. The biggest problem they faced early on was that the main relais to toggle between net and grid (the switch operated at 24 volt) they used wore out too quickly from corrosion from sparking. They spent a little more on higher quality relais and that solved that.
Note that for ANY of these internal net systems, you will probably need to have an EE check it out and certify it; at least here in Europe, as you may be doing things against all manners of code (building codes, wiring codes, electrical safety codes (e.g. if you have a fire, what happens to firemen entering and trying to extinguish things?)
What exactly does it do against an attack where, say, the barcode-reading machine reads the bar-code and pops up on the screen "R", but internally records "D"? If the code doing that is subtle enough, it may just push "D" ahead of "R" - and if it's in a state where they already knew that it was going to be a close race, it probably wouldn't even be questioned unless the outcome of the entire election relies (in a big part) on the votes cast right there.
Not to mention that everything just became a lot more expensive, requires a lot more maintenance (I presume the ballot would be thermal paper, as you don't really want to end up running out of ink/toner, and it's a lot simpler mechanism used successfully in cashiers' machines all over the planet with very little breakdown - but all the same, now you have gears, heating elements, etc. to worry about).
I don't pretend to know the ideal solution, but the above seemed like a thought you skipped in your post - even though it must have been thought of at the working group.
Slashdot Mirror
really, others -will-, for whatever reason. Perhaps it's a $100 discount given on their treatment if they allow their info to be shared with google - perhaps it's free medication for a month... who knows, who cares, others -will- participate.
And then what happens?
Say your dad participates. Google now has info on your dad. They find that he has a heart condition, and that this is hereditary.
Google also knows about you. It knows through social networking that your dad is, well, your dad.
Now insurance companies *may* (just because Google is not governed by HIPAA, doesn't mean they'll hand it out - nor does HIPAA prevent medical records from being 'oops' stolen).. know that...
1. Your dad has a hereditary heart condition
2. You're his son.
Ergo...
3. You may have this condition as well.
You think the insurance agency would do nothing with this? Hum.
---
Or, more broadly (and this can be a very interesting aspect of google health in general)...
Say that in your area, there's a 25% higher chance to develop lung cancer; as visualized on Google Health/Maps.
It doesn't matter, then, that you never participated - you live in that area, ergo.
This is already done with, say, crime statistics - charging you more for car insurance if cars tend to get stolen with some frequency in your area - it would be very naive to think that health statistics would not do the same.
And so forth. And so on.
Though most of the above the insurance agencies can already do anyway - google's just making it a heck of a lot easier for them.
"things they have been able to do since they bought their first VCR recorder 25 years ago."
MacroVision ACP, anyone?
Yes, you can easily filter that out with a little box you buy for a couple of bucks if you're affected by it, but you're definitely viewing things a bit too rose-colored on the whole copy-protection front if you think that this sort of thing is new.
Nobody is blaming Aviv for the existence of the bug. Nobody is blaming Aviv for telling people about the bug.
We *might* be blaming Aviv for telling the world, script kiddies and botnet operators alike, about this bug -before- even notifying the manufacturer of the crap product.
Nor did Aviv wait a reasonable time period for the manufacturer to admit their product's crap state and issue either A. a warning of their own (don't print links) or B. a fix, while providing full credit for discovering the bug to Aviv. Aviv could then still parade his bragging rights around, disclose the exact details, provide proof-of-concept and generally be admired for re-affirming the notion that the product is crap and telling the world in a responsible manner.
Yes, I know, in the time that Aviv would be waiting for the manufacturer to issue a warning / a fix, there could be *others* who also have figured out this vulnerability, and could be actively using it, perhaps on your computer right now! don't look! But given the odds of maybe a handful of people using this for targeted operations vs thousands of script kiddies at work, I'll take my chances with that handful of people in that time period.
Oh, and I consider 3 days to be sufficient a time period for any manufacturer to respond, so anybody who felt like showing how it sometimes takes a manufacturer YEARS before fixing things can just bugger off. I have nothing against disclosure if the manufacturer takes too long - forcing their hand may be the best thing. But having them caught off-guard and scrambling by flat-out announcing it to the world is far more irresponsible than the alternative.
imho.
What if you off yourself? No thanks, I'll stay the heck away from calling you -anything- after this indictment decision.
And yes, I fully realize that what happened in the article's case is far more severe than calling a person a troll on Slashdot.
On the other hand, the girl also didn't go through the steps of blocking the user, reporting the user to MySpace or going to court to get the equivalent of a restraining order (as a sibling poster pointed out, we have such things for stalkers.. but you do still need to take action yourself to get one). My sympathies to the family and loved ones, my disgust unto the women (sorry, Ms. Grills, but I don't think you should get away from this relatively unscathed) who drove the girl to see only one solution to this, and my middle finger to MySpace for not doing much in the way of anything to educate their users that there -are- many, many options of dealing with this including legal routes. To be named a victim in this case must bring a very unpleasant and awkward feeling in the gut of the powers-that-be there.
Back to my point... -I- don't know what might send a user over the edge, so no troll mod for you.
I most certainly do - Future Crew was awesome :)
:)
However, just the "render a hemicube" bit is 'expensive' in its own right - this isn't a hemicube for some localized lighting effects that can be done in very low resolution - you need to do this in high enough a resolution that you don't get severe smearing at the peripheries. Don't get me wrong, if a game runs at 90fps (wtf) and with this it'll run at 40fps.. I, for one, won't care. But many gamers seem to... or they don't want to sacrifice particle effects / whatever.
Then on top of this comes post-effects which would need re-mapping to the polar coordinates. Whee.
Like I said, it's doable, but it's expensive. Doing this directly in the vector->screen stage is much cheaper.. but you have to add this in hardware first. It will be done, just not now
...you can't prove there isn't one. Neither can they prove that there is. They may argue that it's likely, but whatever.
However, it's also one of the pitfalls. They're not 100% stupid and I wouldn't put it past them to say "okay, then you won't mind if I zero out all the stuff that you claim doesn't have any data". That wouldn't take particularly long, so what is your defense going to be?
However, I don't know if they can actually write data to your machine; I think the current provisions are read-only? whatever.
Sadly, that's not on the front page; unless you have a custom front page that always shows backslash articles... from August 2006 :\
Really, we used to - this has been some time ago - have new front page posts about a particularly popular topic and have some of the most insightful comments, often from differing views, rehashed as a starting point for a far more interesting comments thread than the original story's (with dozens of trolls, flamebaits, ill-informed comments, etc. often based on just the title or summary).
In fact, the section is still there. So is the link. Welcome to BackSlash: http://backslash.slashdot.org/
But where the heck did it go? Did the 'editors' realize that "whew boy, this sure is hard work!"? I never found any information on why it seems to have suddenly just stopped dead.
Maybe I missed a comment from an 'editor' somewhere in an unrelated thread, perhaps it's under some catch-all in the FAQ (it's not listed as a section in the "What are the sections for?" item).
What I do know is: I miss it.
Now to see if I'll get a +5 Off-topic..
Even if an egg is fertilized by a sperm, there are a thousands of things that can go wrong that would cause it to just never divide, divide wrongly and get auto-aborted, not settle to the lining in the womb and get auto-aborted, nevermind complications further down the road that could cause a late auto-abortion or a stillborn delivery. At which point are any of the above examples ever a life?
Without defining 'life' we can't really define whether something had a potential for life in the first place... if you define 'a fertilized egg' as being 'life', then you -must- also say that every egg has a potential for life as long as it gets fertilized. We're not fertilizing every egg (thank goodness), so are we in effect denying millions of potential lives every day simply by a woman having her period instead of sitting around pregnant? ( Can't really fault the men for not using every single sperm on an egg, the ratio of eggs to sperm is just entirely too low to justify that. ) The GP was being funny more than serious, but when it comes down to it - you have to accept that there's a core truth to the funniness.
Then again, you asked in another comment how somebody would feel being the result of a science experiment and I really do hope that the child commenter pointing out in-vitro fertilization has been modded +5 Insightful by the time I press Submit on this comment.
...although it might be possible with a pixel shader, the hardware would really need to support other projection types than just standard 3-point (and with some hacking the transformation matrix, 2-point) perspective.
For a dome projection, you essentially need a linear fisheye projection out of the card, and the cards just don't do that.
You could do it in software, render a hemicube in the buffer, use a pixel shader to map the appropriate pixels onto the circle, done. Except that to get to 'done', you have to go through some very expensive (in terms of performance drop) steps.
...was "a little while ago" on thursday?
Because that's when the existence of the vulnerability was already known, at least. The people who figured it out aren't telling the world how to do it (I'm sure clever people can figure it out), and are / were waiting for Google to fix it first.
http://ece.uprm.edu/~andre/insert/gmail.html
You might be seeing plain ol' spam from gmail; it's been having its share of problems with spammers since both captcha crack -and- before that by manual sign-up, simply -because- everybody trusted gmail (what, with the forced SMS/Text Message sign-up, invite-only, etc. preceding).
Heck, if anything, those codecs should focus on higher quality output first; higher compression be damned. I hate seeing the blocky artifacts from any non-lossless video compression. I don't mind that they're only 8bpc, video and film noise tends to kill any banding issues anyway.. until they don't anymore, I won't worry about 10bpc, 16bpc or even 32bpc video encoding.
However... this is in collaboration with DreamWorks. This isn't about your typical DVD or Blu-Ray disc. This is about displaying things like digital intermediate files - from film scans (often done at 10bpc) right through whatever bitdepth pipeline in use for the project (16bpc or 32bpc being common), to the filmprint which again is done at a higher bitdepth than 8bpc. Even digital cinema is ready for higher bitdepths and if you google around a bit, you'll find several proposals for how to handle it efficiently (sizes do increase quite a bit with bitdepth, whereas a film roll will always be the size of 1 (one) filmroll.. whether the image is exposed/etched from an 8bpc digital or a 32bpc digital)
This will trickle down to consumers as well, however - especially photographers who are muttering about quantization artifacts (banding) in subtle gradients like, oh, the sky when taken with a high quality camera (i.e. low sensor noise).. taking a RAW will deal with that on the camera end, but they still end up displaying it back on your 8bpc monitor at the moment (unless they already have a 10bpc display - as I said in another comment.. this is not new; see SGI )
Displays can already do a much higher DPI - some handhelds with 3" screens can do 800x600. That's 2.4" along the length, for 800dots/2.4" = 333.33333etc. DPI.
However, imagine a full size 17" widescreen (16:10) at a DPI of 300. 17" is about 14.4" wide by 9" high. 14.4*300 = 4320, 9*300 = 2700. A 4320x2700 display? Crikey. I'm sure we'll get there eventually, but at the resolution rate we're currently seeing - not for some time aside from high end displays.
They're absolutely right that CMYK does not encompass RGB. They overlap for a large part, and don't overlap in small areas (with one larger area in the deep vivid cyans).
However, a larger bitdepth doesn't do anything for color space. It simply determines the granularity of that color space. If with 16 bit you get 65,536 individual colors within the RGB gamut (with slightly higher granularity in the green channel, typically), and with 24bit you get 16,777,216 individual possible colors within the RGB gamut, then with 30 bit (10 bit per channel; it's not new, really), you get 1,073,741,824 individual possible colors... but still within the RGB gamut (of the device at hand).
An HDR display (either by using a very bright backlight or more localized LED backlights control, etc.) also doesn't change the gamut of that device - it simply allows for much brighter values of them.
Now, if they were to make an LCD panel that aside from the R,G,B pixel elements also had C M Y pixel elements, then you most certainly could increase the gamut. It would also be much more difficult to switch to than a simple bitdepth change.
...though I don't think it's a mousedown javascript. Rather, a javascript - or something - sets the browser status bar to the correct site - but when you actually click the link...
For example
1. go to www.google.com
2. search for "slashdot"
3. hover over the very first link
3-1: The status bar reads "http://slashdot.org"
4. right-click on the link
4-1: The status bar changes to reflect the actual URL
5. Copy the link location
6. Paste it somewhere
6-1. The actual URL turns out to be: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fslashdot.org%2F&ei=GARBLE&usg=MOREGARBLE
( 'weird' stuff substituted - who knows wtf that information is )
I'm pretty sure they didn't do this in the past, as I remembered looking at the source of the page and thinking "that is some lean html right there". Now, however.. they must be wasting gigabytes a day thanks to links like that. But I suppose they can afford it, and for them it's a nice metric to see which links got clicked, etc.
I'm pretty sure that picketing outside some local MPAA/RIAA/whathaveyou office is going to have absolutely zero effect, unless you manage to get a few hundred people - I suppose you might get on the local/regional news.
Donating to the EFF might help in defending against frivolous lawsuits against individuals (amicable briefs and such), and that's laudable, but that's not quite what we need in this case either.
So, where do I go to find a party that will take on the MPAA/RIAA/the law* and say "It ends here. These sites do not host illegal material, they do not make it available, they merely tell you where to get it - and that in itself is not illegal*." ?
(* to note - that actually -is- illegal in some nations, so the actual law would have to be changed.. which is a long and difficult road especially when faced with an extremely wealthy lobby wanting such a law in place and kept in place )
especially if you can make them really, really tiny but still 'legible' (often requiring context of nearby letters, granted). I made one - it's used in graphics and licensed by one party for print ('read the fineprint' takes on a whole new meaning when the font is baseline 3 pixels tall.)
Other than that, pixel fonts are still routinely used in games - simply because rendering a vector font is more expensive than rendering a sprite.
off-topic :D (other than perhaps Isla Fisher and Sandra Bullock in one movie (no, not that kind of movie - perverts.)
With my girl (yes, I know - I don't exist) and besides - Isla Fisher is in it.. what more could I want?
I'll get the wtf out of the way first
"Given that applying zebra striping in an electronic medium is a nontrivial task"
Say what? Any application that is based on columns and/or rows has trivial access to those columns/rows as separate entities. Markup for such columns/rows is easily changed. 'mod N 2 == 0? grey:white' is hardly nontrivial, it's so basic that if you can't manage to do it, you must be using the wrong software.
---
Now for the scope - it seems like the only research they have done is when data in the sheet is dense and the sheet itself is not all that wide.
Now try with a wide sheet and instead of every 'cell' or at least one of its close neighbors having data in it, imagine lots of empty cells. Now try and see if zebrastriping helps or not. I can guarantee you that without any visual cues, your lining up of something in the leftmost column to the same line on the rightmost column is going to fail far more often than you'd like.
--
Oh wait, they even admit as much:
"However, there is clearly a need for additional studies to investigate how task difficulty and the size of the table/form influence the effect of zebra striping."
No shit. I'm glad you admitted that your sample size is too low.
So now that humankind is capable of dealing with large numbers and such quite easily (and I think it's odd to think that civilization back then would have a hard time understanding 'billions of years' but nodded at 'and the water turned into wine' as if that was perfectly reasonable), is there any edition of The Bible (presumably unofficial) that has everything re-written in the "what it meant to say, but us puny humans wouldn't have understood back in the day, is ..."?
To hook into your sibling poster's comment... a presumably 'non-fictional' work, that indeed could be taken literally (whether the statements within be true or false left aside)?
I'm curious - why must he be an atheist if he rejects the idea of a God that would leave people in an apparent state of deception (from GP poster's point of view)?
He could just as easily believe in a different God, or multiple Gods, or etc. which to him/her is truthful in every way.
Or he could be agnostic, saying that there may very well be a God, or multiple gods, but that he doesn't believe that the God described in OP is the kind of God he would choose to believe in.
--
As for the 26 words... I know human beings more benevolent and loving like that. I, for one, don't need the love of a random stranger in order for me to help them in any which way I can if I concern myself with their person. Put differently, from the perspective of somebody who were not to believe in 'God', what would 'God' have done for them that would have him deserve their love? On the up side - those who don't believe in God typically don't believe in Hell and all that, and probably couldn't care less about what God thinks and demands, as it becomes a moot issue.
...and it is a 'story'... then would you agree to call 'The Bible' a work of fiction?
I'm asking because I'm thinking that Speed Racer is primarily a U.S. childhood memory keepsake.
I've seen the trailer pass by before various movies four times now (10,000 BC, Definitely Maybe, Reservation Road, The Spiderwick Chronicles - a pretty spread out mix of audiences), and all four times the audience's response ranged from "wtf is speed racer?" to "what's with the awful effects?".
Somehow I can't see any of the audience here (NL) to be immediately drawn into the movie thanks to the lack of growing up with Speed Racer, and the trailer showing a minimum of story and mostly oddly-composited (I guess it's a "visual style") live action/CG doesn't exactly help to lure people in based on the visuals.
So what has audience response been in other countries?
It's not that ugly of a hack, I've seen it implemented before.
The 'at the moment of switchover' is overrated - if you take a regular toggle switch from a power strip and switch that to off and back on real quick-like, nothing modern attached to it is going to just shut off. That's 10s of milliseconds between on -> off -> on again. A (relay) switch that toggles between grid and net is 1. much faster than human action and 2. only goes on (net) on (grid).
If you -are- worried about this type of thing, just get a line regulator..tons of those around.
The real tricks are in...
1. Splitting up your home net into subgroups so that you have the lightest bits on one group, and heavier bits on another group.
2. Getting a supply/demand switch so that if demand from a groups together is too high for your home net, it will switch that group to the grid. The supply from your home net that would still be enough for the lighter group(s) would still power those.
1. Is not required, but saves you the bit where you have energy that isn't used and can't be stored in battery (full?) as it'll still use it for the lower requirement devices. It does make setup much more complex, however, especially if you're going to be using your existing wiring (a blender and a coffee machine are likely to end up in the same group, physically, as they're in the kitchen - but the blender draws much more energy than the coffee machine).
2. If 1. is ditched, then these switches are available at the better DIY stores. They're commonly found in power strips where a 'master' socket controls slave sockets; if draw from the master drops below a certain threshold, the slaves are powered off automatically.
Note that #2 automatically deals with things like low wind (wind energy), low sunlight (solar) and low battery (presuming you're storing surplus energy during the day), so that you don't have to worry about light sensors or timered switches for bedtime/wake-up.
I've seen it implemented in a warehouse, so they could easily do all their own wiring in ugly conduits and whatnot. The biggest problem they faced early on was that the main relais to toggle between net and grid (the switch operated at 24 volt) they used wore out too quickly from corrosion from sparking. They spent a little more on higher quality relais and that solved that.
Note that for ANY of these internal net systems, you will probably need to have an EE check it out and certify it; at least here in Europe, as you may be doing things against all manners of code (building codes, wiring codes, electrical safety codes (e.g. if you have a fire, what happens to firemen entering and trying to extinguish things?)
What exactly does it do against an attack where, say, the barcode-reading machine reads the bar-code and pops up on the screen "R", but internally records "D"?
If the code doing that is subtle enough, it may just push "D" ahead of "R" - and if it's in a state where they already knew that it was going to be a close race, it probably wouldn't even be questioned unless the outcome of the entire election relies (in a big part) on the votes cast right there.
Not to mention that everything just became a lot more expensive, requires a lot more maintenance (I presume the ballot would be thermal paper, as you don't really want to end up running out of ink/toner, and it's a lot simpler mechanism used successfully in cashiers' machines all over the planet with very little breakdown - but all the same, now you have gears, heating elements, etc. to worry about).
I don't pretend to know the ideal solution, but the above seemed like a thought you skipped in your post - even though it must have been thought of at the working group.