> Doesn't really help in a business environment - few adblockers allow you to > deploy and manage them centrally. Frankly, it would make more sense to block > ads at the firewall.
> It's not about smaller cameras - when your pixels are smaller than > individual photos (as is the case now),
I don't believe that is true. The smallest pixel pitch I can find is 2300 nanometers.
> making them smaller only increases the "noise" part of the s/n ratio.
Some people may choose to use this technology to make smaller cameras with performance equal to the smallest useful ones currently available: I'm sure there is a market. Others will use it to make "normal" cameras with improved performance: there's sure to be a market for that as well.
Because, after all, a self-selected group of people actively interested in discussing the topic is sure to be representative of the population as a whole.
> With enough sensitivity everything gives off infrared radiation...
Actually it does so with no sensitivity at all, just by being hotter than absolute zero. However, to detect infrared your sensor must not only be sensitive to it, it must also be significantly colder than the object you are trying to image. otherwise it will just detect its own emissions.
>...who knows how much area the individual pixels will have to take up.
Assuming the stuff is more or less as the articles say it is that will be up to the designer of the imaging chip. You build your transistor array and then coat it with this stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
> Is this just a some way to produce it cheaper by somehow distilling it out?
No, but it's natural and organic. That makes it ok to spray it in people's eyes.
> "But it is unfortunate that here in India patriotism is judged on your
> emotional show"
That pretty much defines patriotism.
> This would make a very useful weapon if you wanted to target a specific
> genotype. Say a particular family.
A cruise missile works for that.
> Wasn't that an episode of ST:TNG?
Wasn't transparent aluminum an episode of ST:TNG?
> Mock Apple sarcastically in an Apple thread.
> Conversely, defend Apple sarcastically in an Apple thread.
> Either is probably sufficient.
Nah. Either one just gets a boring old "+5 Insightful".
I'm referring to a real antenna, of course. The shortened antennas used in most (if not all) cellphones are extremely inefficient compared to dipoles.
Citation, please.
Oh, come on. What do I have to do to get a "+5 Troll"?
> ...talk time to over 10 minutes.
Or two hours if you add a whip antenna, but no smartphoney would ever do that.
The world will end.
> France is... ...way ahead: all the way into the eighties.
> I just re-enabled AdBlock. I disabled it after the Ars Technica article
> regarding advertisement supported websites.
Whining. If they don't want to send you their page they are free to ignore your GET requests.
> Doesn't really help in a business environment - few adblockers allow you to
> deploy and manage them centrally. Frankly, it would make more sense to block
> ads at the firewall.
Privoxy does exactly that.
Why don't you think that the top tier services should be held responsible for the results of their daisy-chaining? They got paid for handing you off.
> Don't block ads. Use NoScript.
I use NoScript to block scripts. I use Privoxy to block ads.
> Blacklists are easily compromised. Whitelists are much more difficult.
Nothing gets through and I can selectively allow scripts.
> I usually suspect the users of 'careless web activity' when I delouse a PC...
They are guilty of 'careless web activity': not blocking ads.
> ...the BBC (not quite a geek-oriented news source) makes no mention at all
> of Firefox being FLOSS.
Probably because they don't know. To them it is a product of Mozilla, Inc, one of several companies that offer "alternative" browsers.
...unchecking "Allow pages to choose their own fonts" block this?
(Or "Stop using Microsoft Windows", but I won't mention that.)
> It's not about smaller cameras - when your pixels are smaller than
> individual photos (as is the case now),
I don't believe that is true. The smallest pixel pitch I can find is 2300 nanometers.
> making them smaller only increases the "noise" part of the s/n ratio.
Some people may choose to use this technology to make smaller cameras with performance equal to the smallest useful ones currently available: I'm sure there is a market. Others will use it to make "normal" cameras with improved performance: there's sure to be a market for that as well.
(Assuming, of course, that this pans out at all.)
> Where do I get my Quantum film developed at ?
You put it in a box with a certain cat.
> I thought photography was getting away from film . . .
Well, it is and it isn't.
Because, after all, a self-selected group of people actively interested in discussing the topic is sure to be representative of the population as a whole.
I.e., ones that are loaded so as to produce the results that the author wants to see.
And who shall have the power to prevent people from attaining positions of power?
> With enough sensitivity everything gives off infrared radiation...
Actually it does so with no sensitivity at all, just by being hotter than absolute zero. However, to detect infrared your sensor must not only be sensitive to it, it must also be significantly colder than the object you are trying to image. otherwise it will just detect its own emissions.
> ...who knows how much area the individual pixels will have to take up.
Assuming the stuff is more or less as the articles say it is that will be up to the designer of the imaging chip. You build your transistor array and then coat it with this stuff.
Fundamentally.