If you're born in the middle of Africa, chances are you'll die before 30 no matter how smart or strong or good-looking you are. If you're born in Europe or the USA, chances are you'll live to be 80, have children and grandchildren, no matter how stupid or weak or ugly you are.
Make-up, plastic surgery, lobbying, family fortunes, social trends, etc., all interfere with evolution through natural selection to the point of making it irrelevant. Intelligent people actually tend to have less children than average, and less partners than average.
The only things still evolving are ideas; genetically speaking, mankind has been standing still for a few thousand years (we live longer because of less disease and better drugs - not because we are genetically "superior" to, say, the ancient egyptians).
Most genetic diseases only manifest themselves late in life (after we've had children), so they keep passing from generation to generation. The only way to eliminate them is to use genetic engineering / therapy (or kill everyone born with those diseases - but I don't think that would be very popular).
Saying genetic engineering is "wrong" and that we should rely only on natural evolution is like saying antibiotics are wrong and we should wait for the body's natural defences to kill the infections.
Ultimately, genetic engineering is a product of our own evolution, so it's as "natural" as learning to throw rocks at enemies or using language.
> Well, for the past 30 years (or since the CCD was
> invented) we have been using CCD with with red,
> green & blue sensors (or cyan/magneta/yellow)
> and then used software to figure out the real colour.
Used software to figure out the real colour? What is that supposed to mean? Digital formats also store red, green and blue (or CMY, YUV, HLS, etc.) separately. And so do analog formats, for that matter. Colour does not vary linearly, so you'll always need at least 3 different components to define it.
The difference here is each pixel of these new sensors can read the 3 colour components, whereas normal CCDs must have 3 times as many pixels as the final image. Too many sensors too close together causes electric noise, which translates to image noise, so the best cameras use 3 separate CCDs (one for each component).
> this makes a lot of difference, it's would
> be just as revelutionary if somebody would
> make a flatscreen with a real colour pixels
Actually, no. It's a lot more "revelutionary" than that. People want big screens, so having 3 dots per pixel is no big deal (and current dots are small enough not to be noticed). People want *smaller* CCDs, so having 1 sensor instead of 3 is a big deal.
>I have already looked at C++, Java, C++,
>C#, Eiffel, and even VB.net;
So you looked at C++ twice. Reminds me of that scene in Blazing Saddles where one of the outlaws says he's good at "Robbery, rape, murder, assault and rape". The other guy says "You said rape twice", and he replies "I like rape".
First, most people here seem to be assuming that video is stored in RGB with N bits per pixel. In fact, video is nearly always captured in YUV, where the Y channel (luminance) has two or four times time resolution of the colour (UV) channels. Even "uncompressed" broadcast-quality video (Betacam) uses this trick (that's what 4:2:2 sampling means, and DV uses 4:2:0 or 4:1:1), which means only half the colour information of Betacam. So stripping the colour will not reduce the data rate to 1/3 of the original YUV, but only to 2/3 or 1/2. And colour can be important (unless the thieves happen to always wear gray). Of course, compared to 24 bpp RGB, grayscale only uses one third, but no-one in their right minds would save video in 24 bpp RGB (it would be like converting 7-bit ASCII to 16-bit unicode).
Second, and I belive this is the main point, motion detection is not (just) a way to detect intruders. It's also a way to decide what needs to be captured and at what quality. The system can capture at full-resolution, full-colour, full-speed while there's movement, and if it doesn't detect any changes for, say, 30 seconds, it can simply switch to a lower quality mode (black and white, 1-5 fps, 1/4 the resolution). As soon as it detects movement, it goes back to the "high quality" mode.
Finally, to save space, compress the video clips to MPEG-4 or a similar format (DivX, etc.), or even MPEG-1 (which is much easier to encode, although not as efficient).
> In the professional video world, many people (perhaps wrongly) call the DV format LOSSLESS.
> However DV is intra-frame based, saving each frame separately, and uses a fixed 5:1
> compression ratio to reduce the size of video files.
Virtually all video formats use some form of lossy compression (starting with the different sampling of the colour channels). DV is compressed but it has no _generation_ loss, meaning you can copy it over and over with no change in quality (unless, of course, there is an error during copy).
However, if you convert from DV to an uncompressed format (ex., uncompressed AVI), and then recompress it to DV, you probably _will_ lose some quality (and this loss also depends on the compressor you use - not all compressors use the same algorithms and some do a better job than others).
The same thing happens with music. Some people download files in MP3 and burn them to an _audio_ CD. If they later rip those CDs to MP3, they probably will be losing some quality. Same is valid if they decide to edit the file (ex., trim it or change the volume). Load the MP3, it gets uncompressed, edit, save again and it's re-compressed.
Some people just don't understand that it's not the _formats_ that introduce the "loss", it's the compression process. Computer files are digital data, and digital data can always be duplicated without any loss.
No operating system will replace Windows until it can do one thing: run Windows software. To be more specific, it has to be able to run at least 80% of Windows' games.
Most people are too lazy to even try a different browser, let alone try a different operating system. When someone runs Opera and they can't find the "favorites" (they're called "bookmarks"), they panic and go back to IE, despite the fact that Opera is superior in every aspect. The few people that I have managed to convince to try Opera for two weeks have made it their default browser.
But Opera and IE do basically the same thing. Ok, so Opera automatically kills pop-ups, it's more secure, it's faster, etc., but you *can* use IE to do the same things.
But when you switch to a different operating system, *all* the programs change (because they use MS IE and MS Office and MS Everything) and some programs (games, mostly) simply don't exist.
Either they want to make a Linux-based "internet appliance" (ie, boot straight into the browser) or they'll need to create something similar to "Lindows" to get people to even consider trying it. Normal people won't buy a computer without Windows no matter what the brand (not even if it was MS Linux).
B&W is essentially a 2D game. Everything happens at ground level. It's also a terribly boring game, but that's a different matter.
I agree Homeworld / Cataclysm have the best 3D interface out there (you *can* make your ships attack from above, actually), and I also agree that to make full use of a 3D "desktop" you need a 3D input device.
But it would be rather strange to use a "power-glove" outside the screen to move things that are inside the screen (I know, people do that with the mouse, but they're not looking at the mouse - it's harder to ignore your hand when you're moving it in 3D space in front of you).
I think 3D environments will only become really useful when we manage to put high-resolution displays in eyeglasses, or project the image directly into the eyes. When that happens you'll actually be able to put your (computer-generated) folders on top of your (real) desk.:)
> You could use this to manipulate shapes in
> 3D in a 3D rendering and animation program
> WITHOUT SPECIAL GLOVES. You'd simply gesture
> into something like 3DStudioMax, Lightwave,
> or Caligari TrueSpace and create shapes
> by molding them with your fingers.
That's already been invented. You don't need 3D imaging, you don't need 3DS MAX and you don't even need a PC. You just need a piece of clay.
> You could use this to manipulate shapes in
> 3D in a 3D rendering and animation program
> WITHOUT SPECIAL GLOVES. You'd simply gesture
> into something like 3DStudioMax, Lightwave,
> or Caligari TrueSpace and create shapes
> by molding them with your fingers.
That's already been invented. You don't need 3D imaging, you don't need 3DS MAX and you don't even need a PC. You just need a piece of clay.
Opera has a built-in e-mail reader with support for multiple accounts / servers. It also has options to automatically kill pop-up windows, maximize frames, etc., and is very secure (ex., pages that are protected with a password aren't even cached). IMO it's by far the best browser, although it could support a few non-standard (but common) HTML extensions / variations.
You can't cure wounds by constantly poking them with a knife.
In reply to the first anonymous coward: I have no idea what the man's name was. He was american and he was wearing something that looked like a military uniform. I know that in the USA lots of congressmen are ex-military, so he may also have been a congressman. I don't even know the names of most politicians in my country; I'm definitely not going to waste time learning those of other countries'. You're free not to believe anything I say. My grandfather never believed men had walked on the moon (maybe he was right and it was all a fake, who knows?).
Bluebomber, actually that was my point, or at least one of my main points. There's nothing wrong with wars (well...). They're part of human political history and lots of countries that were at war at some point are now best of friends. In fact, the countries that the USA were actually at war with (England, Germany, Japan, Mexico) are now their partners and allies. But you can't have wars by proxy and pretend you're not involved. And that's what's been happening in the last few decades. The british decided to give Palestine to the jews because they felt guilty for not helping them before WW2. They overlooked one small detail: other people were living there. And since then, the USA have been supporting Israel (with money, weapons and international lobbying) against pretty much all neighbouring countries because they see it (Israel) as "foothold" in a very important part of the globe. Since the USA has a lot of money and a lot of bombs, most other countries turn a blind eye. But the people actually living there can't, because no matter where they turn their eyes they see Israeli soldiers, armed with american weapons. Killing them and taking their land.
For those who don't get it (americans, mostly, and some british), let me try to put things in perspective: Imagine you're an american (if you are american, this should be easy). One day, the chinese give you a call and say "hi, we've decided to give New York to the mongols", and the next day a huge ship full of mongols arrives and they start settling all over NY. The people of NY probably don't feel terribly happy about it. So they say "wait a minute, we were here first" and "we're very sorry the mongols were driven out of their country, but why should they get ours, why don't you make room for them in China?" but the chinese say "this is the way it's gonna be because we say so", and they give the mongols money and weapons to fight the new-yorkers. So now besides not being crazy about the mongols, the people of NY start hating the chinese, too. They manage to save some money and get a few weapons, but they're no match for the chinese weapons the mongols are using (and getting for free). Soon the new-yorkers are out of bullets and broke. They try to get help from other countries, but everyone ignores them and says it's none of their business. The new-yorkers just can't understand this, because those countries usually jump in whenever similar things happen elsewhere. So they start to believe there's an international conspiracy against them, led by the chinese, of which the mongols are just an instrument. And, objectively, it would be very hard to see things any other way.
Meanwhile, chinese TV keeps running stories about how the evil and primitive new-yorkers are throwing stones at the civilised and handsome mongols (forgetting to mention that the mongols are responding with chinese bullets and missiles and tanks). So the people of China start to hate the new-yorkers, which is just what the chinese goverment wants, because that means they can now send the mongols weapons with public support.
So one day the new-yorkers decide that, since they have nothing left to lose, they're going to blow up something in Beijing, and at least force the chinese to acknowledge there's a war going on. So a few of them infiltrate china and, in a suicide mission, manage to blow up the ballroom of the imperial palace. Now the chinese people start crying "these new-yorkers are madmen!" and "that was a barbaric, unprovoked attack!" and so what does their goverment do? Bomb New Jersey. Because, they say, the attack was certainly planned by John Williams, the dangerous Brooklin terrorist that is currently hiding in NJ. They don't show any proof, but they say they don't have to. Since they have a lot of money and a lot of bombs, other countries are very quick to agree, and even to join them (glad it isn't them being bombed this time).
What happens is that, slowly, other people all over the world start to get fed up with the arrogance of the chinese. The chinese solution is to bomb them too, or at least threaten to do so. But the people of China are starting to suspect that they're not God's chosen people after all, and that they can be hit. And if three or four guys managed to blow up their imperial palace's ballroom, what could one thousand or one million enemies do? They're starting to understand that they will suffer the consequences of their government's actions. And some of them are starting to say "why is it are we supporting the mongols, again...?" and "if we were in the new-yorkers' place, wouldn't we do exactly the same?". And to that the chinese goverment says "er... we have to bomb the newyorkese because they are a threat to civililization and democraciness!"
So now, you ask, how do you solve this mess? Definitely not by bombing more people. Unless you're planning to bomb absolutely everyone. Because the more people you bomb, the more enemies you make. And the harder it becomes to justify your bombings based on the argument that the people you are bombing are savage killers. In fact, the USA have killed more people than any other country in the world (in Hiroshima they killed 300.000 in one day, not counting the after-effects). You solve this mess by admitting you were wrong. You solve it by giving back what you took (or as much of it as you still can) and by helping the people you wronged. It takes a lot more balls to say you're sorry and to admit you were wrong than it does to press a button and blow up a miserable village somewhere in the middle of a desert. But that's also the difference between being able to sleep at night and having to keep both eyes open all the time. And even with both eyes open, you can only look in one direction at a time.
The american people need to understand this. Because their governemnt and their armed forces clearly won't. They have nuclear shelters and aircraft escorts, why should they worry about aircraft flying into buildings? Great, that gives them an excuse to strike back harder. For them it's just a game. For the people on the streets (of NY, of Palestine, of Kabul), it's their life.
Back to the subject of security at Comdex and similar events: what can a bag or a laptop carry that you can't carry under your clothes? And can't everyone understand that? So how does that sort of measure make people feel "safer"? Only very stupid people, or people who think that terrorists are all very stupid. The only thing that sort of measure does is limit people's freedom and make their lives harder.
People aren't terrified; people are hysterical. They're not really scared, they just feel like they have to do something.
People are thinking "some guy could walk in here carrying some disease and kill everyone". Yes, he could. And "someone could plant a bomb here and blow us all up". Yes, that's possible. Or "maybe some crazy terrorist has nuclear weapons and he's going to blow up planet Earth". Yep, could very well be. That's always been possible (to a degree) and that always will be possible (more so with each day that passes).
Doesn't mean it's any more likely today than it was yesterday or 30 years ago.
The attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were not based on madness or religion. They were not attempts to kill a lot of people. There are much better ways of doing that. They were political acts, against symbols of the USA's military and economic rule. Even the airline names were carefully picked. And although of course I don't approve of them, I can understand them. It seems that most americans can't.
Some time ago there was a war in Somalia. People were killing each other with knives, stones, machetes, etc. Sometimes with their bare hands. Someone asked an observer if that meant this was a particularly violent conflict. He said no, it just meant they had run out of bullets.
Using airplanes full of people to blow up buildings is no more "cruel" or "barbaric" than using a cruise missile. Certainly no more cowardly. But some people (most people) just don't have cruise missiles. And some people (most people), when left with nothing to lose, will not mind losing what they have, especially if losing something so worthless (their life) can have such a big impact.
The way to avoid being blown up or infected or assassinated is not to isolate yourself and shoot everyone that comes too near. The way to avoid being struck by your enemies is to have no enemies.
The strikes on the WTC carried a message: "you are not out of range; if we really want to hit you, we can." I've known that all my life (possibly because I live in Europe and we've had a few thousand years of history and wars and revolutions and all that sort of stuff); most americans seem to have discovered it in the last two months. And they think they have to do something about it, because they can't stand the thought of being vulnerable; of not being untouchable. Today on the BBC I saw this american congressman (or maybe he was a general) saying "We have to bomb Afghanistan because we have to do something and we can't think of anything else to do". The only problem is, it's not accomplishing anything (apart from killing people that don't even know what's going on, making more enemies and worsening the USA's image worldwide).
And this brings me back to the silly security measures and to the way this hysteria is being used to limit people's freedom. If the only thing you can think of doing has no practical effect, then don't do it. Think of something else, or don't do anything. If someone really wants to strike, they will always be able to strike. I don't know if these "security measures" are a deliberate attempt to take away people's freedom and give more powers to the state or if they're just good-natured (but misguided) attempts to keep people "safe". Either way people should stand up for their rights and refuse to have their freedom taken away. It's not that "the terrorists win", it's just that people lose. Someone said that a nation that can't balance security and freedom doesn't deserve either.
I'm not a religious person; I don't believe there's life after death. But I still consider my freedom more valuable than my life.
Rune has to be one of the worst, most frustrating and most boring games ever. The only objective review of it I saw as at Old Man Murray.
This is definitely the kind of games Linux doesn't need (I think Rune is actually a perfectly valid argument against Windows). I'd much rather see conversions of Chris Sawyer's games (Transport Tycoon Deluxe, for example) or the Ultima series (up to Ultima VII / Underworld II anyway, Ultima VIII and IX were crap).
Definitely. Not only is his science believable (and already possible, in some cases), but his fiction is also what I'd call "literature", not just forgettable adventures that happen to take place in space.
Projecting at 24 fps and recording at 30 will definitely not produce good results.
Converting film to PAL is easier (simply play the film at 25 fps instead of 24 - most projectors can do this - and record it with a video camera). It can cause a slight distortion to the sound (when there's sound), but you can fix that by changing the sound speed with a program that doesn't affect pitch.
If you can project at 29.97 fps, you can use the method described above (then use a program such as After Effects to render the video at a speed of 80% with interpolation).
If not, have it converted (to DV or Beta Digital or whatever) at a professional facility like nedron suggested. If it's a simple conversion it probably won't be too expensive (it's mostly automatic). But if the film is important to you and you don't mind paying a bit extra, ask them to do colour calibration, cleaning, etc.
We must unite and start the.NOT project. It should be so slow it appears not to work at all. About three times a day it should really stop working and only resume if you tell it at least four of your best-kept secrets, which it will publish to the internet in the background. Also, if it doesn't like your tie, it will format your hard disk.
The license agreement will be written backwards, in the cyrillic alphabet, and will start with "By reading the first word of this agreement ("by"), you have agreed to the following:...".
Slashdot Mirror
If you're born in the middle of Africa, chances are you'll die before 30 no matter how smart or strong or good-looking you are. If you're born in Europe or the USA, chances are you'll live to be 80, have children and grandchildren, no matter how stupid or weak or ugly you are.
Make-up, plastic surgery, lobbying, family fortunes, social trends, etc., all interfere with evolution through natural selection to the point of making it irrelevant. Intelligent people actually tend to have less children than average, and less partners than average.
The only things still evolving are ideas; genetically speaking, mankind has been standing still for a few thousand years (we live longer because of less disease and better drugs - not because we are genetically "superior" to, say, the ancient egyptians).
Most genetic diseases only manifest themselves late in life (after we've had children), so they keep passing from generation to generation. The only way to eliminate them is to use genetic engineering / therapy (or kill everyone born with those diseases - but I don't think that would be very popular).
Saying genetic engineering is "wrong" and that we should rely only on natural evolution is like saying antibiotics are wrong and we should wait for the body's natural defences to kill the infections.
Ultimately, genetic engineering is a product of our own evolution, so it's as "natural" as learning to throw rocks at enemies or using language.
RMN
~~~
Human perception is closer to HLS (Hue, Luminance, Saturation). Personally, I would use this model to determine how "similar" two colours are.
Note: some programs use HSB (Hue, Saturation, Brightness) instead of HLS, but it's basically the same thing (just a different order).
RMN
~~~
> Well, for the past 30 years (or since the CCD was
> invented) we have been using CCD with with red,
> green & blue sensors (or cyan/magneta/yellow)
> and then used software to figure out the real colour.
Used software to figure out the real colour? What is that supposed to mean? Digital formats also store red, green and blue (or CMY, YUV, HLS, etc.) separately. And so do analog formats, for that matter. Colour does not vary linearly, so you'll always need at least 3 different components to define it.
The difference here is each pixel of these new sensors can read the 3 colour components, whereas normal CCDs must have 3 times as many pixels as the final image. Too many sensors too close together causes electric noise, which translates to image noise, so the best cameras use 3 separate CCDs (one for each component).
> this makes a lot of difference, it's would
> be just as revelutionary if somebody would
> make a flatscreen with a real colour pixels
Actually, no. It's a lot more "revelutionary" than that. People want big screens, so having 3 dots per pixel is no big deal (and current dots are small enough not to be noticed). People want *smaller* CCDs, so having 1 sensor instead of 3 is a big deal.
RMN
~~~
>I have already looked at C++, Java, C++,
>C#, Eiffel, and even VB.net;
So you looked at C++ twice. Reminds me of that scene in Blazing Saddles where one of the outlaws says he's good at "Robbery, rape, murder, assault and rape". The other guy says "You said rape twice", and he replies "I like rape".
RMN
~~~
> Embroys successfully attached themselves
> to the walls of these wombs and began to
> grow but were terminated to comply with regulations.
That's nice, but any chance of doing the same with embryos?
RMN
~~~
First, most people here seem to be assuming that video is stored in RGB with N bits per pixel. In fact, video is nearly always captured in YUV, where the Y channel (luminance) has two or four times time resolution of the colour (UV) channels. Even "uncompressed" broadcast-quality video (Betacam) uses this trick (that's what 4:2:2 sampling means, and DV uses 4:2:0 or 4:1:1), which means only half the colour information of Betacam. So stripping the colour will not reduce the data rate to 1/3 of the original YUV, but only to 2/3 or 1/2. And colour can be important (unless the thieves happen to always wear gray). Of course, compared to 24 bpp RGB, grayscale only uses one third, but no-one in their right minds would save video in 24 bpp RGB (it would be like converting 7-bit ASCII to 16-bit unicode).
Second, and I belive this is the main point, motion detection is not (just) a way to detect intruders. It's also a way to decide what needs to be captured and at what quality. The system can capture at full-resolution, full-colour, full-speed while there's movement, and if it doesn't detect any changes for, say, 30 seconds, it can simply switch to a lower quality mode (black and white, 1-5 fps, 1/4 the resolution). As soon as it detects movement, it goes back to the "high quality" mode.
Finally, to save space, compress the video clips to MPEG-4 or a similar format (DivX, etc.), or even MPEG-1 (which is much easier to encode, although not as efficient).
RMN
~~~
> In the professional video world, many people (perhaps wrongly) call the DV format LOSSLESS.
> However DV is intra-frame based, saving each frame separately, and uses a fixed 5:1
> compression ratio to reduce the size of video files.
Virtually all video formats use some form of lossy compression (starting with the different sampling of the colour channels). DV is compressed but it has no _generation_ loss, meaning you can copy it over and over with no change in quality (unless, of course, there is an error during copy).
However, if you convert from DV to an uncompressed format (ex., uncompressed AVI), and then recompress it to DV, you probably _will_ lose some quality (and this loss also depends on the compressor you use - not all compressors use the same algorithms and some do a better job than others).
The same thing happens with music. Some people download files in MP3 and burn them to an _audio_ CD. If they later rip those CDs to MP3, they probably will be losing some quality. Same is valid if they decide to edit the file (ex., trim it or change the volume). Load the MP3, it gets uncompressed, edit, save again and it's re-compressed.
Some people just don't understand that it's not the _formats_ that introduce the "loss", it's the compression process. Computer files are digital data, and digital data can always be duplicated without any loss.
RMN
~~~
No operating system will replace Windows until it can do one thing: run Windows software. To be more specific, it has to be able to run at least 80% of Windows' games.
Most people are too lazy to even try a different browser, let alone try a different operating system. When someone runs Opera and they can't find the "favorites" (they're called "bookmarks"), they panic and go back to IE, despite the fact that Opera is superior in every aspect. The few people that I have managed to convince to try Opera for two weeks have made it their default browser.
But Opera and IE do basically the same thing. Ok, so Opera automatically kills pop-ups, it's more secure, it's faster, etc., but you *can* use IE to do the same things.
But when you switch to a different operating system, *all* the programs change (because they use MS IE and MS Office and MS Everything) and some programs (games, mostly) simply don't exist.
Either they want to make a Linux-based "internet appliance" (ie, boot straight into the browser) or they'll need to create something similar to "Lindows" to get people to even consider trying it. Normal people won't buy a computer without Windows no matter what the brand (not even if it was MS Linux).
RMN
~~~
B&W is essentially a 2D game. Everything happens at ground level. It's also a terribly boring game, but that's a different matter.
:)
I agree Homeworld / Cataclysm have the best 3D interface out there (you *can* make your ships attack from above, actually), and I also agree that to make full use of a 3D "desktop" you need a 3D input device.
But it would be rather strange to use a "power-glove" outside the screen to move things that are inside the screen (I know, people do that with the mouse, but they're not looking at the mouse - it's harder to ignore your hand when you're moving it in 3D space in front of you).
I think 3D environments will only become really useful when we manage to put high-resolution displays in eyeglasses, or project the image directly into the eyes. When that happens you'll actually be able to put your (computer-generated) folders on top of your (real) desk.
RMN
~~~
They'll be calling it "Winux" next.
RMN
~~~
> "We expect to have the first full field-scanned
> images by April 1," said Chuck Gwyn, program director
I wonder if there's any significance to the date...
RMN
~~~
> It really does look like a desk-lamp...
;^)
> I wonder how much light it produces?
You know, I was thinking the same thing. If it gives out enough light, maybe this could be the first truly useful Mac...
RMN
~~~
That's still about $100 more than they're worth.
RMN
~~~
Aren't american supercomputers made in China and programmed in Pakistan anyway?
RMN
~~~
(sorry for the formatting, here it goes again)
> You could use this to manipulate shapes in
> 3D in a 3D rendering and animation program
> WITHOUT SPECIAL GLOVES. You'd simply gesture
> into something like 3DStudioMax, Lightwave,
> or Caligari TrueSpace and create shapes
> by molding them with your fingers.
That's already been invented. You don't need 3D imaging, you don't need 3DS MAX and you don't even need a PC. You just need a piece of clay.
> You could use this to manipulate shapes in > 3D in a 3D rendering and animation program > WITHOUT SPECIAL GLOVES. You'd simply gesture > into something like 3DStudioMax, Lightwave, > or Caligari TrueSpace and create shapes > by molding them with your fingers. That's already been invented. You don't need 3D imaging, you don't need 3DS MAX and you don't even need a PC. You just need a piece of clay.
Opera has a built-in e-mail reader with support for multiple accounts / servers. It also has options to automatically kill pop-up windows, maximize frames, etc., and is very secure (ex., pages that are protected with a password aren't even cached). IMO it's by far the best browser, although it could support a few non-standard (but common) HTML extensions / variations.
Have you considered a shoulder-top instead?
You can't cure wounds by constantly poking them with a knife.
In reply to the first anonymous coward: I have no idea what the man's name was. He was american and he was wearing something that looked like a military uniform. I know that in the USA lots of congressmen are ex-military, so he may also have been a congressman. I don't even know the names of most politicians in my country; I'm definitely not going to waste time learning those of other countries'. You're free not to believe anything I say. My grandfather never believed men had walked on the moon (maybe he was right and it was all a fake, who knows?).
Bluebomber, actually that was my point, or at least one of my main points. There's nothing wrong with wars (well...). They're part of human political history and lots of countries that were at war at some point are now best of friends. In fact, the countries that the USA were actually at war with (England, Germany, Japan, Mexico) are now their partners and allies. But you can't have wars by proxy and pretend you're not involved. And that's what's been happening in the last few decades. The british decided to give Palestine to the jews because they felt guilty for not helping them before WW2. They overlooked one small detail: other people were living there. And since then, the USA have been supporting Israel (with money, weapons and international lobbying) against pretty much all neighbouring countries because they see it (Israel) as "foothold" in a very important part of the globe. Since the USA has a lot of money and a lot of bombs, most other countries turn a blind eye. But the people actually living there can't, because no matter where they turn their eyes they see Israeli soldiers, armed with american weapons. Killing them and taking their land.
For those who don't get it (americans, mostly, and some british), let me try to put things in perspective: Imagine you're an american (if you are american, this should be easy). One day, the chinese give you a call and say "hi, we've decided to give New York to the mongols", and the next day a huge ship full of mongols arrives and they start settling all over NY. The people of NY probably don't feel terribly happy about it. So they say "wait a minute, we were here first" and "we're very sorry the mongols were driven out of their country, but why should they get ours, why don't you make room for them in China?" but the chinese say "this is the way it's gonna be because we say so", and they give the mongols money and weapons to fight the new-yorkers. So now besides not being crazy about the mongols, the people of NY start hating the chinese, too. They manage to save some money and get a few weapons, but they're no match for the chinese weapons the mongols are using (and getting for free). Soon the new-yorkers are out of bullets and broke. They try to get help from other countries, but everyone ignores them and says it's none of their business. The new-yorkers just can't understand this, because those countries usually jump in whenever similar things happen elsewhere. So they start to believe there's an international conspiracy against them, led by the chinese, of which the mongols are just an instrument. And, objectively, it would be very hard to see things any other way.
Meanwhile, chinese TV keeps running stories about how the evil and primitive new-yorkers are throwing stones at the civilised and handsome mongols (forgetting to mention that the mongols are responding with chinese bullets and missiles and tanks). So the people of China start to hate the new-yorkers, which is just what the chinese goverment wants, because that means they can now send the mongols weapons with public support.
So one day the new-yorkers decide that, since they have nothing left to lose, they're going to blow up something in Beijing, and at least force the chinese to acknowledge there's a war going on. So a few of them infiltrate china and, in a suicide mission, manage to blow up the ballroom of the imperial palace. Now the chinese people start crying "these new-yorkers are madmen!" and "that was a barbaric, unprovoked attack!" and so what does their goverment do? Bomb New Jersey. Because, they say, the attack was certainly planned by John Williams, the dangerous Brooklin terrorist that is currently hiding in NJ. They don't show any proof, but they say they don't have to. Since they have a lot of money and a lot of bombs, other countries are very quick to agree, and even to join them (glad it isn't them being bombed this time).
What happens is that, slowly, other people all over the world start to get fed up with the arrogance of the chinese. The chinese solution is to bomb them too, or at least threaten to do so. But the people of China are starting to suspect that they're not God's chosen people after all, and that they can be hit. And if three or four guys managed to blow up their imperial palace's ballroom, what could one thousand or one million enemies do? They're starting to understand that they will suffer the consequences of their government's actions. And some of them are starting to say "why is it are we supporting the mongols, again...?" and "if we were in the new-yorkers' place, wouldn't we do exactly the same?". And to that the chinese goverment says "er... we have to bomb the newyorkese because they are a threat to civililization and democraciness!"
So now, you ask, how do you solve this mess? Definitely not by bombing more people. Unless you're planning to bomb absolutely everyone. Because the more people you bomb, the more enemies you make. And the harder it becomes to justify your bombings based on the argument that the people you are bombing are savage killers. In fact, the USA have killed more people than any other country in the world (in Hiroshima they killed 300.000 in one day, not counting the after-effects). You solve this mess by admitting you were wrong. You solve it by giving back what you took (or as much of it as you still can) and by helping the people you wronged. It takes a lot more balls to say you're sorry and to admit you were wrong than it does to press a button and blow up a miserable village somewhere in the middle of a desert. But that's also the difference between being able to sleep at night and having to keep both eyes open all the time. And even with both eyes open, you can only look in one direction at a time.
The american people need to understand this. Because their governemnt and their armed forces clearly won't. They have nuclear shelters and aircraft escorts, why should they worry about aircraft flying into buildings? Great, that gives them an excuse to strike back harder. For them it's just a game. For the people on the streets (of NY, of Palestine, of Kabul), it's their life.
Back to the subject of security at Comdex and similar events: what can a bag or a laptop carry that you can't carry under your clothes? And can't everyone understand that? So how does that sort of measure make people feel "safer"? Only very stupid people, or people who think that terrorists are all very stupid. The only thing that sort of measure does is limit people's freedom and make their lives harder.
People aren't terrified; people are hysterical. They're not really scared, they just feel like they have to do something.
People are thinking "some guy could walk in here carrying some disease and kill everyone". Yes, he could. And "someone could plant a bomb here and blow us all up". Yes, that's possible. Or "maybe some crazy terrorist has nuclear weapons and he's going to blow up planet Earth". Yep, could very well be. That's always been possible (to a degree) and that always will be possible (more so with each day that passes).
Doesn't mean it's any more likely today than it was yesterday or 30 years ago.
The attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were not based on madness or religion. They were not attempts to kill a lot of people. There are much better ways of doing that. They were political acts, against symbols of the USA's military and economic rule. Even the airline names were carefully picked. And although of course I don't approve of them, I can understand them. It seems that most americans can't.
Some time ago there was a war in Somalia. People were killing each other with knives, stones, machetes, etc. Sometimes with their bare hands. Someone asked an observer if that meant this was a particularly violent conflict. He said no, it just meant they had run out of bullets.
Using airplanes full of people to blow up buildings is no more "cruel" or "barbaric" than using a cruise missile. Certainly no more cowardly. But some people (most people) just don't have cruise missiles. And some people (most people), when left with nothing to lose, will not mind losing what they have, especially if losing something so worthless (their life) can have such a big impact.
The way to avoid being blown up or infected or assassinated is not to isolate yourself and shoot everyone that comes too near. The way to avoid being struck by your enemies is to have no enemies.
The strikes on the WTC carried a message: "you are not out of range; if we really want to hit you, we can." I've known that all my life (possibly because I live in Europe and we've had a few thousand years of history and wars and revolutions and all that sort of stuff); most americans seem to have discovered it in the last two months. And they think they have to do something about it, because they can't stand the thought of being vulnerable; of not being untouchable. Today on the BBC I saw this american congressman (or maybe he was a general) saying "We have to bomb Afghanistan because we have to do something and we can't think of anything else to do". The only problem is, it's not accomplishing anything (apart from killing people that don't even know what's going on, making more enemies and worsening the USA's image worldwide).
And this brings me back to the silly security measures and to the way this hysteria is being used to limit people's freedom. If the only thing you can think of doing has no practical effect, then don't do it. Think of something else, or don't do anything. If someone really wants to strike, they will always be able to strike. I don't know if these "security measures" are a deliberate attempt to take away people's freedom and give more powers to the state or if they're just good-natured (but misguided) attempts to keep people "safe". Either way people should stand up for their rights and refuse to have their freedom taken away. It's not that "the terrorists win", it's just that people lose. Someone said that a nation that can't balance security and freedom doesn't deserve either.
I'm not a religious person; I don't believe there's life after death. But I still consider my freedom more valuable than my life.
Rune has to be one of the worst, most frustrating and most boring games ever. The only objective review of it I saw as at Old Man Murray.
This is definitely the kind of games Linux doesn't need (I think Rune is actually a perfectly valid argument against Windows). I'd much rather see conversions of Chris Sawyer's games (Transport Tycoon Deluxe, for example) or the Ultima series (up to Ultima VII / Underworld II anyway, Ultima VIII and IX were crap).
Just had to add a link to this story:
How the world was saved
Definitely. Not only is his science believable (and already possible, in some cases), but his fiction is also what I'd call "literature", not just forgettable adventures that happen to take place in space.
Visit his official site at http://www.lem.pl.
Projecting at 24 fps and recording at 30 will definitely not produce good results.
Converting film to PAL is easier (simply play the film at 25 fps instead of 24 - most projectors can do this - and record it with a video camera). It can cause a slight distortion to the sound (when there's sound), but you can fix that by changing the sound speed with a program that doesn't affect pitch.
If you can project at 29.97 fps, you can use the method described above (then use a program such as After Effects to render the video at a speed of 80% with interpolation).
If not, have it converted (to DV or Beta Digital or whatever) at a professional facility like nedron suggested. If it's a simple conversion it probably won't be too expensive (it's mostly automatic). But if the film is important to you and you don't mind paying a bit extra, ask them to do colour calibration, cleaning, etc.
We must unite and start the .NOT project. It should be so slow it appears not to work at all. About three times a day it should really stop working and only resume if you tell it at least four of your best-kept secrets, which it will publish to the internet in the background. Also, if it doesn't like your tie, it will format your hard disk.
...".
The license agreement will be written backwards, in the cyrillic alphabet, and will start with "By reading the first word of this agreement ("by"), you have agreed to the following: