I realize that I am in the minority here on Slashdot when it comes to my opinions about IP law, but there are some serious flaws in your logic. For example,
if they have technological protection, then why should the government give them traditional protection? It was only there because information was hard to protect as property.
By that reasoning, if I buy better locks and window bars for my house the police should no longer patrol around my house. The only reason they drive around my neighborhood is that it's so easy to break into houses and steal things, right?
Technological protection isn't intended to be a replacement for legal protection. The fact is that there is widespread, blatant disregard for the existing laws when it comes to copying intellectual property, and new digital technologies are making it easier and easier. And while new laws are in the pipeline it is unlikely that the U.S. government will provide additional enforcement. So companies that own the rights to digital music recordings (for example) want to find new ways to protect their property. They paid for the creation of the music, and they did that in order to be able to sell it and make a profit, and they want to be compensated when people use their property. This is true of both huge corporations and independent producers. And of software developers, movie producers, etc. etc. etc.
I have a lot of trouble understanding the current furor over all of this. It's as if the citizens of a city with a high crime rate are standing up and shouting "This isn't fair! We have been able to steal things for years and years without fear of being arrested, and now they are passing new laws and enforcing the old ones, and people are installing new security systems in their houses to keep us out! We have done it for so long that we now have a RIGHT to steal things!
I would love to see a poll taken about people's attitudes about this issue. I'd be willing to bet that there would be a direct, inverse correlation between 1) dislike for IP laws and technological copy protection and 2) the amount of creative work that a person has done. The more truly creative work that a person has produced in their lifetime, the more they would be in favor of strong copyright protection, both legal and technological.
And that would produce an indirect correlation with age. The younger the person, the less genuinely creative work they would have done and the more likely they would be to think that it is their "right" to make free copies of other people's creative work.
That, as far as I am concerned, is the "Unbelievable Crap".
> What address are you sending it to? Spam originating
> outside Earthlink's network may be sent to
> junkmail@earthlink.net. This mailbox does not send an
> auto-response.
I have the nickname "junk" set up for junkmail@earthlink.net, so I'm 100% certain that that was the address I was using. Whenever I forwarded a junk email message (with full headers, as requested) to that address I got a message back with the subject line ""ELNK/MSPG test for susceptibility to third-party mail relay [checking relay status of IP addresses submitted by customers]". I didn't keep any of them, but the body basically said "this is a test, please ignore it".
I even sent a message about all of this to abuse@abuse.earthlink.net, subject "Your abuse system is abusing me" on 3 April 2002. (I didn't delete that message, that's how I recovered the subject line above.) I got an autoresponse that told me that I had neglected to include complete headers, and if my submission had been misidentified (which it was) that I should forward it to abuse@abuse.earthlink.net. I did that, and got back another autoresponse. After the third or fourth try I got a personal response, but the person misunderstood the issue and I gave up. And I stopped forwarding junk mail to Earthlink.
> What can Earthlink do about spam from a MSN (for example) user?
Um... block it? {smile} Or alert MSN? I haven't been there in a while, but the Earthlink spam page used to talk about cooperation between ISPs to fight spam.
> Mail sent to the junkmail address, on the other hand,
> is forwarded on to Brightmail who runs Earthlink's
> Spaminator. They will consider it for inclusion in
> their incoming mail filters. So this mail is being
> looked at, and something is being done with it
I'll buy that. I know I sounded cynical, and I now regret using Earthlink's name in my original post instead of "my ISP", but you have to look at this from the customer's viewpoint. I did what Earthlink asked me to do, to help fight spam, and I got even more unwanted email. Twice as much. My well-intentioned (and polite, I might add) attempts to tell Earthlink that their system was not ideal were basically ignored.
Spaminator may be very effective -- I have no idea how many junk messages I would receive without it so I have no way to judge -- but the system that feeds Spaminator actually discouraged me from participating.
> I think I'd start [forwarding spam to Yahoo] if they
> sent me a summary monthly
I had exactly the opposite problem. Earthlink has an address where you can forward spam, and every time you do, they send you an acknowledgement message! I was diligently forwarding all of my spam to them, in the hope that it would eventually cut down on the number of unwanted messages that I receive... until I realized that I was effectively doubling the number of unwanted messages I received. One for the original spam, and one for the ack.
Then I carefully read their web page about forwarding. The only people they are going after are the ones that use Earthlink's own facilities to send spam. Like any significant spammer is going to do that in today's environment.
So I have come to the conclusion that ISPs sometimes provide a place to forward spam so they will appear to be doing something, and so that people can feel like they are doing something to eliminate spam.
The FTC may have similar motives -- it wouldn't be the first time that a U.S. government agency did something solely for the PR value -- but let's hope that's not the case.
> What kind of inspiration did he get from plowing the field?
Think "scan lines".
The path that a plow follows in a rectangular field resembles the path that is traced out on the face of a video display. In fact if I'm not mistaken the first TV used a back-and-forth scan pattern instead of the current method.
Hmmm... I'm a self-employed code-writer, and my first thought when I saw that question was "Yes! It makes for better code!"
When I spend long hours at the keyboard I stay focused on my project. When I finally quit for the day I make a few quick notes about what I am working on, but the next day I still can't pick up where I left off. It takes a certain amount of time to get back into the groove.
So I wonder how much people's perspective about this issue is based on who benefits from the long hours?
Are you pissed off because long hours make for poor quality work, or because you are being asked to work harder for somebody else's benefit? That's not a criticism, I'd feel the same way.
Self Employed:
Longer hours > higher productivity per week > more money > more motivation > recurse
> FICA isn't an income tax. You will be getting that money back
By that logic paying for police protection isn't a tax either, because I get something for my money. My house doesn't get robbed and I don't get murdered because of the routine patrols. The value of my home goes up, and so on. And property taxes aren't a tax because I eventually get the benefit of better city services.
Semantics.
FICA is taken out of my income, based on the level of my income. I am forced to pay for a government-provided service, whether or not I want it, and whether or not I actually use it, and whether or not the fund goes broke. If the government was willing to guarantee that everything I put into Social Security would come back to me or my heirs, with interest, I might buy that line, but even then I'd be ticked off about not having a choice.
I call that an income tax.
All that being said, I think Social Security is a great system! Many elderly people would live in poverty because of it because they failed to plan properly.
>>The average US citizen is forced to give nearly
>> 50% of his/her earnings per year to fedeal, state,
>> and local governments.
> God damn do you live in the wrong state
He's closer to right than you might think. For example, when your employer takes money for Social Security (FICA) out of your paycheck, he has to pay the government an equal amount out of his own pocket. That "matching" is often called "double FICA". You never see that dollar amount on your check, but it's money that your employer sends to the government on your behalf. If he didn't have to do that, he could afford to give you more money.
If you are cynical and think "he'd just keep it", think about it this way. As an employer, I decide that I can afford to spend no more than $50k/year to hire an employee. But I have to account for the double FICA, so I can only afford to offer the employee $48k/year. I made those numbers up, but you get the idea. Double FICA is really an invisible tax that ends up coming out of your pocket.
Another example... Most of your money is taxed twice. You pay income tax when your employer gives you a paycheck, and then you pay sales tax when you spend it. Gas taxes, beer tax, property taxes that are included in your rent or mortgage payment... it goes on and on.
When you add them all up you will be amazed. 50% is about right for many people.
> a) Longer recording length, which is what really killed Beta
Somewhat true. A Beta 750 tape lasts 4.5 hours at Speed III, compared to 6 hours at VHS SLP-speed, which has a significantly lower picture quality by the way. I'm not sure that that amount of difference (33%) was enough to make VHS win a side-by-side comparison all by itself, given Beta's other features (view-during-FFWD, etc.).
> b) Less expensive players
That didn't happen until after VHS won the marketing battle and sold enough units to bring the manufacturing costs down. I bought dozens (hundreds?) of both types in the 80s and the costs were almost identical.
> c) Less expensive media
Same answer.
> d) Non-proprietary
My first Betamax was a Zenith, circa 1979. Lots of companies licensed the beta format from Sony. In fact I'm not sure I ever owned a Sony. Of course when manufacturers eventually chose sides the licensing costs were a factor, but several chose to manufacture both for a long time.
Your point is valid, but I don't want to leave people with the impression that "proprietary" in this context has the same meaning that it has today. In 1985 no consumer would choose VHS because it was an "open standard".
By the way, the Zenith was around $850 as I recall. It was a top-loader, recorded one-hour tapes - $20 each -- and the timer was an extra $100 unit that clamped to the top and switched the power on and off.
To most business people, talking with a developer is like talking with a doctor. They don't understand the other person's black art, and they have no way to judge the person's competence, other than their standing in their professional community. And most business people treat the health of their business at least as seriously as they treat their own personal health.
So... Faced with life-saving surgery, assuming that you have the resources, would you choose the doctor who charges $5,000 or the one who charges $15,000?
To paraphrase George Carlin (?)... Somewhere out there is the world's worst doctor. And somebody has an appointment with him first thing tomorrow morning.
Nothing in the laws of Physics confine us to travel within the solar system
I understand what you mean, but that's a little like saying "This prison cell does not keep me from escaping, my lack of ability to bend inch-thick steel bars does."
By "us" I meant the current crop of Homo Sapiens. Given the current state of the species, we are effectively confined to this solar system.
If you mean "we will not always be confined" I agree, but we must answer several Large Questions first, and big telescopes like the SKA may well help us answer those questions.
> How do you know this is something worth doing?
>
> Or is it just a matter or "because we can build
> something bigger, we should"?
Larger telescopes = the ability to see farther.
So a more apt question would be "Should we explore further, just because we can?"
Isn't the answer obvious?
A very small number of people actually explore our planet and universe. Most of the rest of us sit home and watch them do it on the Discovery Channel or National Geographic specials, and are amazed. The rest prefer the Home Shopping Network and say "who cares about the rest of the universe when we have cubic zirconia?"
> Isn't this what led to the Escalade and the Excursion?
Wow, you're actually comparing bigger and better scientific instruments to ever-larger SUVs?
Eventually, larger telescopes will probably allow us to see the edge of the universe.
They will probably allow us to image planets around other stars.
Then continents on those planets.
Who knows what else we will see. Cities?
As we understand them today, the laws of physics confine us to traveling within our own solar system, but we have the ability see much, much farther. Aren't you interested?
Appending my own post... Obviously that should be 400 not 4000. But in an industry that makes a big deal about a 10% sensitivity improvement, it might as well be 4,000,000.
Picture an image sensor as a one-inch-square array of pixels. If the frame rate is 30 per second, then 1/30 (3.3%) of the light that falls on the array makes up each frame.
If the frame rate is 12k/second then only 1/12000 (0.0083%) of the light can be used to make each frame. That means that the CCD must be 4000 times more sensitive to light, or you must use a light source that is 4000 times brighter, to get the same results.
And that ignores the fact that solid state light-to-electricity convertors like CCDs have a certain "latency" or "stickiness". Like the effect that the eye sees after a watching a flashbulb, CCDs suffer from after-images, and the brighter the light the worse the problem. Film doesn't have that problem because each frame is exposed on a new "receptor", i.e. a new piece of film.
...casually ask them where they post. Then ask them what their User Name is. Then go read what they have written.
Not only will a handle like LuvWarez or MyBossSux tell you a lot, but I suspect that over time a person's SlashDot messages (for example) are a good indicator of their real personality and attitudes. And intelligence. And sense of humor.
Currently, researcher's communications rely upon older satellites that have drifted from their geostationary orbits into ones that are now at least partly visible from the pole
Huh? If a geosynch satellite drifted out of alignment directly over the equator it would not appear to be stationary in the sky. How the heck do they keep their dish pointed at it?
Something's fishy here, and it ain't penguin breath.
NASA announced today that it has finally determined the cause of the mysterious disappearance of the Mars Observer satellite. According to a spokesperson, "Apparently our weight calculations were flawed. It seems that the satellite actually weighed slightly more than it should have, and that threw off our trajectory calculations. We have no idea where the extra mass came from, but we have determined that it was roughly equivalent to an aluminum cube approximately one inch square."
The Kimberly process was not originally designed to "combat terrorism".
In the last few years several companies have been able to create gem-sized, near-gem-quality diamonds in the laboratory. De Beers, which controls the great majority of the world's diamond inventory, is terrified that the value of diamonds will plummet when the technology progresses to the point where large, perfect diamonds can be produced very cheaply. And it's coming soon.
It is becoming more and more difficult to tell an artificial diamond from a natural one, even with sophisticated equipment. De Beers wants to be able to track diamonds to prove that they are "natural". They believe -- and are actively promoting the viewpoint -- that natural diamonds are somehow more virtuous than artificial ones.
Interestingly, one of the ways that can be used to identify a lab-grown diamond is its lack of imperfections, yet the most desirable (read "expensive") natural diamonds are the ones with the fewest flaws.
The "combat terrorism" thing is clever, but it's a PR move to cover their real motives.
More to the point of the original topic... Guys, ask your women: "Honey, would you prefer a natural diamond or an equal-sized, perfect artificial diamond at 1% of the cost?"
by "NASA twerps" I don't mean everyone at NASA, the vast majority of whom are fine, hardworking geniuses. I just mean the people at the top who made the bizarre space station decision.
This is (based on the number of posts in this/. thread that make the same mistake) a common misconception.
NASA is a government agency. "The people at the top", making the big decisions, are Senators and Congressmen. Follow the history of 1) what NASA has proposed doing, and 2) what has actually been funded, and you'll see what I mean.
NASA consistently proposes projects based on high-quality scientific and engineering studies, but Washington makes the final decisions based on politics.
Space program --> miniaturized electronics --> personal computers --> your ability to post drivel like that.
I'm not saying that without the space program/race/etc. of the 60's we would never invent things like personal computers and the internet, but it gave modern technology a huge boost. Without the space program I suspect that right about now we'd be looking forward to the next generation of 300-baud modems.
Going after names derived from an outdated name like Godzilla makes about as much sense as going after "Planet Of The..."
In other words, it makes a lot of sense in the right context.
I predict that within a few weeks it will be announced that [name of major studio] will be releasing a Godzilla movie in time for [Christmas 2004?], produced by [a name you recognize] and directed by [another name you recognize].
Slashdot Mirror
I realize that I am in the minority here on Slashdot when it comes to my opinions about IP law, but there are some serious flaws in your logic. For example,
if they have technological protection, then why should the government give them traditional protection? It was only there because information was hard to protect as property.
By that reasoning, if I buy better locks and window bars for my house the police should no longer patrol around my house. The only reason they drive around my neighborhood is that it's so easy to break into houses and steal things, right?
Technological protection isn't intended to be a replacement for legal protection. The fact is that there is widespread, blatant disregard for the existing laws when it comes to copying intellectual property, and new digital technologies are making it easier and easier. And while new laws are in the pipeline it is unlikely that the U.S. government will provide additional enforcement. So companies that own the rights to digital music recordings (for example) want to find new ways to protect their property. They paid for the creation of the music, and they did that in order to be able to sell it and make a profit, and they want to be compensated when people use their property. This is true of both huge corporations and independent producers. And of software developers, movie producers, etc. etc. etc.
I have a lot of trouble understanding the current furor over all of this. It's as if the citizens of a city with a high crime rate are standing up and shouting "This isn't fair! We have been able to steal things for years and years without fear of being arrested, and now they are passing new laws and enforcing the old ones, and people are installing new security systems in their houses to keep us out! We have done it for so long that we now have a RIGHT to steal things!
I would love to see a poll taken about people's attitudes about this issue. I'd be willing to bet that there would be a direct, inverse correlation between 1) dislike for IP laws and technological copy protection and 2) the amount of creative work that a person has done. The more truly creative work that a person has produced in their lifetime, the more they would be in favor of strong copyright protection, both legal and technological.
And that would produce an indirect correlation with age. The younger the person, the less genuinely creative work they would have done and the more likely they would be to think that it is their "right" to make free copies of other people's creative work.
That, as far as I am concerned, is the "Unbelievable Crap".
> What address are you sending it to? Spam originating
> outside Earthlink's network may be sent to
> junkmail@earthlink.net. This mailbox does not send an
> auto-response.
I have the nickname "junk" set up for junkmail@earthlink.net, so I'm 100% certain that that was the address I was using. Whenever I forwarded a junk email message (with full headers, as requested) to that address I got a message back with the subject line ""ELNK/MSPG test for susceptibility to third-party mail relay [checking relay status of IP addresses submitted by customers]". I didn't keep any of them, but the body basically said "this is a test, please ignore it".
I even sent a message about all of this to abuse@abuse.earthlink.net, subject "Your abuse system is abusing me" on 3 April 2002. (I didn't delete that message, that's how I recovered the subject line above.) I got an autoresponse that told me that I had neglected to include complete headers, and if my submission had been misidentified (which it was) that I should forward it to abuse@abuse.earthlink.net. I did that, and got back another autoresponse. After the third or fourth try I got a personal response, but the person misunderstood the issue and I gave up. And I stopped forwarding junk mail to Earthlink.
> What can Earthlink do about spam from a MSN (for example) user?
Um... block it? {smile} Or alert MSN? I haven't been there in a while, but the Earthlink spam page used to talk about cooperation between ISPs to fight spam.
> Mail sent to the junkmail address, on the other hand,
> is forwarded on to Brightmail who runs Earthlink's
> Spaminator. They will consider it for inclusion in
> their incoming mail filters. So this mail is being
> looked at, and something is being done with it
I'll buy that. I know I sounded cynical, and I now regret using Earthlink's name in my original post instead of "my ISP", but you have to look at this from the customer's viewpoint. I did what Earthlink asked me to do, to help fight spam, and I got even more unwanted email. Twice as much. My well-intentioned (and polite, I might add) attempts to tell Earthlink that their system was not ideal were basically ignored.
Spaminator may be very effective -- I have no idea how many junk messages I would receive without it so I have no way to judge -- but the system that feeds Spaminator actually discouraged me from participating.
> I think I'd start [forwarding spam to Yahoo] if they
> sent me a summary monthly
I had exactly the opposite problem. Earthlink has an address where you can forward spam, and every time you do, they send you an acknowledgement message! I was diligently forwarding all of my spam to them, in the hope that it would eventually cut down on the number of unwanted messages that I receive... until I realized that I was effectively doubling the number of unwanted messages I received. One for the original spam, and one for the ack.
Then I carefully read their web page about forwarding. The only people they are going after are the ones that use Earthlink's own facilities to send spam. Like any significant spammer is going to do that in today's environment.
So I have come to the conclusion that ISPs sometimes provide a place to forward spam so they will appear to be doing something, and so that people can feel like they are doing something to eliminate spam.
The FTC may have similar motives -- it wouldn't be the first time that a U.S. government agency did something solely for the PR value -- but let's hope that's not the case.
> What kind of inspiration did he get from plowing the field?
Think "scan lines".
The path that a plow follows in a rectangular field resembles the path that is traced out on the face of a video display. In fact if I'm not mistaken the first TV used a back-and-forth scan pattern instead of the current method.
I don't know about you but I would not want water dripping from my laptop
Sugar, caffeine, and caramel coloring will be added automatically.
At some point you will be able to buy an IV tube that shunts the "waste cola" directly into your veins.
> Do Long Work Hours Affect Code Quality?
Hmmm... I'm a self-employed code-writer, and my first thought when I saw that question was "Yes! It makes for better code!"
When I spend long hours at the keyboard I stay focused on my project. When I finally quit for the day I make a few quick notes about what I am working on, but the next day I still can't pick up where I left off. It takes a certain amount of time to get back into the groove.
So I wonder how much people's perspective about this issue is based on who benefits from the long hours?
Are you pissed off because long hours make for poor quality work, or because you are being asked to work harder for somebody else's benefit? That's not a criticism, I'd feel the same way.
Self Employed:
Longer hours > higher productivity per week > more money > more motivation > recurse
Employed by others:
Longer hours > reduced motivation > lower productivity > resume'
1972: Typist's Elbow
1982: Space Invaders Wrist
1992: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
2002: Your entire hand shatters after being frozen in liquid nitrogen.
> FICA isn't an income tax. You will be getting that money back
By that logic paying for police protection isn't a tax either, because I get something for my money. My house doesn't get robbed and I don't get murdered because of the routine patrols. The value of my home goes up, and so on. And property taxes aren't a tax because I eventually get the benefit of better city services.
Semantics.
FICA is taken out of my income, based on the level of my income. I am forced to pay for a government-provided service, whether or not I want it, and whether or not I actually use it, and whether or not the fund goes broke. If the government was willing to guarantee that everything I put into Social Security would come back to me or my heirs, with interest, I might buy that line, but even then I'd be ticked off about not having a choice.
I call that an income tax.
All that being said, I think Social Security is a great system! Many elderly people would live in poverty because of it because they failed to plan properly.
But it is a tax.
>>The average US citizen is forced to give nearly
>> 50% of his/her earnings per year to fedeal, state,
>> and local governments.
> God damn do you live in the wrong state
He's closer to right than you might think. For example, when your employer takes money for Social Security (FICA) out of your paycheck, he has to pay the government an equal amount out of his own pocket. That "matching" is often called "double FICA". You never see that dollar amount on your check, but it's money that your employer sends to the government on your behalf. If he didn't have to do that, he could afford to give you more money.
If you are cynical and think "he'd just keep it", think about it this way. As an employer, I decide that I can afford to spend no more than $50k/year to hire an employee. But I have to account for the double FICA, so I can only afford to offer the employee $48k/year. I made those numbers up, but you get the idea. Double FICA is really an invisible tax that ends up coming out of your pocket.
Another example... Most of your money is taxed twice. You pay income tax when your employer gives you a paycheck, and then you pay sales tax when you spend it. Gas taxes, beer tax, property taxes that are included in your rent or mortgage payment... it goes on and on.
When you add them all up you will be amazed. 50% is about right for many people.
Welllll...
> a) Longer recording length, which is what really killed Beta
Somewhat true. A Beta 750 tape lasts 4.5 hours at Speed III, compared to 6 hours at VHS SLP-speed, which has a significantly lower picture quality by the way. I'm not sure that that amount of difference (33%) was enough to make VHS win a side-by-side comparison all by itself, given Beta's other features (view-during-FFWD, etc.).
> b) Less expensive players
That didn't happen until after VHS won the marketing battle and sold enough units to bring the manufacturing costs down. I bought dozens (hundreds?) of both types in the 80s and the costs were almost identical.
> c) Less expensive media
Same answer.
> d) Non-proprietary
My first Betamax was a Zenith, circa 1979. Lots of companies licensed the beta format from Sony. In fact I'm not sure I ever owned a Sony. Of course when manufacturers eventually chose sides the licensing costs were a factor, but several chose to manufacture both for a long time. Your point is valid, but I don't want to leave people with the impression that "proprietary" in this context has the same meaning that it has today. In 1985 no consumer would choose VHS because it was an "open standard".
By the way, the Zenith was around $850 as I recall. It was a top-loader, recorded one-hour tapes - $20 each -- and the timer was an extra $100 unit that clamped to the top and switched the power on and off.
To most business people, talking with a developer is like talking with a doctor. They don't understand the other person's black art, and they have no way to judge the person's competence, other than their standing in their professional community. And most business people treat the health of their business at least as seriously as they treat their own personal health.
So... Faced with life-saving surgery, assuming that you have the resources, would you choose the doctor who charges $5,000 or the one who charges $15,000?
To paraphrase George Carlin (?)... Somewhere out there is the world's worst doctor. And somebody has an appointment with him first thing tomorrow morning.
Nothing in the laws of Physics confine us to travel within the solar system
I understand what you mean, but that's a little like saying "This prison cell does not keep me from escaping, my lack of ability to bend inch-thick steel bars does."
By "us" I meant the current crop of Homo Sapiens. Given the current state of the species, we are effectively confined to this solar system.
If you mean "we will not always be confined" I agree, but we must answer several Large Questions first, and big telescopes like the SKA may well help us answer those questions.
> How do you know this is something worth doing?
>
> Or is it just a matter or "because we can build
> something bigger, we should"?
Larger telescopes = the ability to see farther.
So a more apt question would be "Should we explore further, just because we can?"
Isn't the answer obvious?
A very small number of people actually explore our planet and universe. Most of the rest of us sit home and watch them do it on the Discovery Channel or National Geographic specials, and are amazed. The rest prefer the Home Shopping Network and say "who cares about the rest of the universe when we have cubic zirconia?"
> Isn't this what led to the Escalade and the Excursion?
Wow, you're actually comparing bigger and better scientific instruments to ever-larger SUVs?
Eventually, larger telescopes will probably allow us to see the edge of the universe.
They will probably allow us to image planets around other stars.
Then continents on those planets.
Who knows what else we will see. Cities?
As we understand them today, the laws of physics confine us to traveling within our own solar system, but we have the ability see much, much farther. Aren't you interested?
Appending my own post... Obviously that should be 400 not 4000. But in an industry that makes a big deal about a 10% sensitivity improvement, it might as well be 4,000,000.
Picture an image sensor as a one-inch-square array of pixels. If the frame rate is 30 per second, then 1/30 (3.3%) of the light that falls on the array makes up each frame.
If the frame rate is 12k/second then only 1/12000 (0.0083%) of the light can be used to make each frame. That means that the CCD must be 4000 times more sensitive to light, or you must use a light source that is 4000 times brighter, to get the same results.
And that ignores the fact that solid state light-to-electricity convertors like CCDs have a certain "latency" or "stickiness". Like the effect that the eye sees after a watching a flashbulb, CCDs suffer from after-images, and the brighter the light the worse the problem. Film doesn't have that problem because each frame is exposed on a new "receptor", i.e. a new piece of film.
...casually ask them where they post. Then ask them what their User Name is. Then go read what they have written.
Not only will a handle like LuvWarez or MyBossSux tell you a lot, but I suspect that over time a person's SlashDot messages (for example) are a good indicator of their real personality and attitudes. And intelligence. And sense of humor.
...and remember the Five C's: Cut, Color, Clarity, Caret, and Cadaver.
Typical Certificate: Pear, White, Flawless, 1.2, Grandma.
who, really, would want to wear their dad in a ring
It's not all that strange, it's just a matter of perspective.
Around the turn of the century (1900) it was very fashionable to wear jewelry made from a dead loved one's hair. Nobody thought it was morose.
Even now, how many people have dear ol' Mom's ashes in a jar on the mantle? Isn't that a little... weird... when you think about it?
My grandfather was buried behind the cabin at his deer-hunting camp. Isn't that a little... creepy?
People build marble buildings to house their remains. Now that's strange!
As for me, I want to be composted.
Currently, researcher's communications rely upon older satellites that have drifted from their geostationary orbits into ones that are now at least partly visible from the pole
Huh? If a geosynch satellite drifted out of alignment directly over the equator it would not appear to be stationary in the sky. How the heck do they keep their dish pointed at it?
Something's fishy here, and it ain't penguin breath.
Vaseline is not an "herbal supplement".
NASA announced today that it has finally determined the cause of the mysterious disappearance of the Mars Observer satellite. According to a spokesperson, "Apparently our weight calculations were flawed. It seems that the satellite actually weighed slightly more than it should have, and that threw off our trajectory calculations. We have no idea where the extra mass came from, but we have determined that it was roughly equivalent to an aluminum cube approximately one inch square."
The Kimberly process was not originally designed to "combat terrorism".
In the last few years several companies have been able to create gem-sized, near-gem-quality diamonds in the laboratory. De Beers, which controls the great majority of the world's diamond inventory, is terrified that the value of diamonds will plummet when the technology progresses to the point where large, perfect diamonds can be produced very cheaply. And it's coming soon.
It is becoming more and more difficult to tell an artificial diamond from a natural one, even with sophisticated equipment. De Beers wants to be able to track diamonds to prove that they are "natural". They believe -- and are actively promoting the viewpoint -- that natural diamonds are somehow more virtuous than artificial ones.
Interestingly, one of the ways that can be used to identify a lab-grown diamond is its lack of imperfections, yet the most desirable (read "expensive") natural diamonds are the ones with the fewest flaws.
The "combat terrorism" thing is clever, but it's a PR move to cover their real motives.
More to the point of the original topic... Guys, ask your women: "Honey, would you prefer a natural diamond or an equal-sized, perfect artificial diamond at 1% of the cost?"
by "NASA twerps" I don't mean everyone at NASA, the vast majority of whom are fine, hardworking geniuses. I just mean the people at the top who made the bizarre space station decision.
/. thread that make the same mistake) a common misconception.
This is (based on the number of posts in this
NASA is a government agency. "The people at the top", making the big decisions, are Senators and Congressmen. Follow the history of 1) what NASA has proposed doing, and 2) what has actually been funded, and you'll see what I mean.
NASA consistently proposes projects based on high-quality scientific and engineering studies, but Washington makes the final decisions based on politics.
> Wait, no, we didn't get squat. Darn!
No?
Space program --> miniaturized electronics --> personal computers --> your ability to post drivel like that.
I'm not saying that without the space program/race/etc. of the 60's we would never invent things like personal computers and the internet, but it gave modern technology a huge boost. Without the space program I suspect that right about now we'd be looking forward to the next generation of 300-baud modems.
I applaud India's plans to invest in its future!
Going after names derived from an outdated name like Godzilla makes about as much sense as going after "Planet Of The..."
In other words, it makes a lot of sense in the right context.
I predict that within a few weeks it will be announced that [name of major studio] will be releasing a Godzilla movie in time for [Christmas 2004?], produced by [a name you recognize] and directed by [another name you recognize].
I just hope it doesn't star Adam Sandler.