It could be argued that that is less a problem with Facebook and more a problem with humans. After all, I could make a website called Monkeedudesucksdonkeydicks.com, and someone searching for you might find that site. I don't even need the internet to post libelous stuff about you.
we'd have cured cancer and aging, and we'd be able to engineer bacteria to cook dinner and take out the trash. The only problem is that we would be ruled by cyborg genius rats.
And that's not a problem with Capitalism? To internalize externalities, you need government regulation, but then you open up another problem, which is companies buying legislators to make friendly regulation. Investors will game the system as much as possible because all they see is numbers.
The problem with this is that there's a bunch of studies that show that most people think they are far better than average drivers, when statistically, that's impossible. Everybody thinks ey can safely handle talking on phone/texting/eating/etc while driving, when ey can't.
Care to explain that one? In the shop or the lab, we all heard that engineering safeguards (technology) are more effective than administrative safeguards (I.E. rules) because people don't follow rules.
Well, that depends. The universe probably won't support life forever. But that doesn't mean everyone has to die. Some day, we'll probably have the technology to evolve into a state which doesn't conform to our definitions of dead and alive. For example: joining a hive mind. Or transferring one's mind to a computer. Making backups.
No, you wouldn't, unless it's your digitizer saturating instead of your CCD. The maximum number of counts that a pixel can read is determined by the full well capacity of the CCD pixel. The full well capacity for a bigger pixel is considerably larger than that for a smaller pixel, so you don't get an advantage in dynamic range with smaller pixels. Actually, the opposite is usually true, since one big pixel holds more than 4 small ones.
Diffraction isn't the main problem. The main problem is insufficient photons. Smaller CCD pixels means they get less photons per pixel, and the signal to noise is lower. Cellphone cameras already get crap performance in low-light conditions, because their lens is so small and doesn't pick up a lot of light. Increasing pixels just gives you a more gritty picture.
For better cellphone camera performance, they need to work on increasing quantum efficiency or lowering noise (perhaps by actively cooling the CCD).
The article poster is being very silly. The only use for this is for scientific instrumentation. It's useless on a consumer camera, even a professional one, because the optics aren't perfect enough for that kind of resolution to matter. Perhaps it could find use in a large reflecting telescope in an observatory.
Slashdot Mirror
It could be argued that that is less a problem with Facebook and more a problem with humans. After all, I could make a website called Monkeedudesucksdonkeydicks.com, and someone searching for you might find that site. I don't even need the internet to post libelous stuff about you.
Sounds like he was going berserk, destroying property, and that's why the police got called.
we'd have cured cancer and aging, and we'd be able to engineer bacteria to cook dinner and take out the trash. The only problem is that we would be ruled by cyborg genius rats.
sounds pretty expensive for a big balloon. I kinda expect less than 1/1000 cost.
when you can type up a report and run a spreadsheet (comfortably!) on a phone, then it's time to worry.
Yup, these freighters operate at extremely high Reynolds numbers. Drag is pretty much negligible.
And that's not a problem with Capitalism? To internalize externalities, you need government regulation, but then you open up another problem, which is companies buying legislators to make friendly regulation. Investors will game the system as much as possible because all they see is numbers.
What's the advantage over using electrical impulses to contract muscles? AFAIK, we've made frog legs move since near the dawn of electricity.
The problem with this is that there's a bunch of studies that show that most people think they are far better than average drivers, when statistically, that's impossible. Everybody thinks ey can safely handle talking on phone/texting/eating/etc while driving, when ey can't.
Care to explain that one? In the shop or the lab, we all heard that engineering safeguards (technology) are more effective than administrative safeguards (I.E. rules) because people don't follow rules.
This is only equivalent in the algebra of a capitalist pig. Any normal, healthy person won't see things the same way.
Battletoads
The solution is to make friends with people who are even richer than you. So join a country club.
a lot of these electronics in the developing world are reused throw-aways from the developed world.
So they migrate to Italy, where you have Mafias dealing with the highest levels of government..
Well, that depends. The universe probably won't support life forever. But that doesn't mean everyone has to die. Some day, we'll probably have the technology to evolve into a state which doesn't conform to our definitions of dead and alive. For example: joining a hive mind. Or transferring one's mind to a computer. Making backups.
Slavery is illegal in China.
I don't think anyone can make LCD pixels as small as CCD pixels.
No, you wouldn't, unless it's your digitizer saturating instead of your CCD.
The maximum number of counts that a pixel can read is determined by the full well capacity of the CCD pixel. The full well capacity for a bigger pixel is considerably larger than that for a smaller pixel, so you don't get an advantage in dynamic range with smaller pixels. Actually, the opposite is usually true, since one big pixel holds more than 4 small ones.
Wow, this is the kind of stuff that deserves patent protection.
Diffraction isn't the main problem. The main problem is insufficient photons. Smaller CCD pixels means they get less photons per pixel, and the signal to noise is lower. Cellphone cameras already get crap performance in low-light conditions, because their lens is so small and doesn't pick up a lot of light. Increasing pixels just gives you a more gritty picture.
For better cellphone camera performance, they need to work on increasing quantum efficiency or lowering noise (perhaps by actively cooling the CCD).
That's very interesting. Are there any images on the web? I'm surprised that old lenses were good enough for that.
The article poster is being very silly. The only use for this is for scientific instrumentation. It's useless on a consumer camera, even a professional one, because the optics aren't perfect enough for that kind of resolution to matter. Perhaps it could find use in a large reflecting telescope in an observatory.
Safety mechanisms ought to be proportionate to the amount of danger. Bicycles are less dangerous to pedestrians than cars.
The problem with that is that the horn is just so obnoxious that honking around a blind corner will make any area near a blind corner uninhabitable.