Except the autopilot isn't using GPS data directly for piloting the plane. It is using the more accurate Inertial Navigation System. GPS is just a source of backup data.
If it was wide open it would absolutely sweep the market
Now there's a statement without any evidence to support it. Do you really believe there are tens of millions of cellphone consumers who would have bought the iPhone, but decided not to because "it's not open"?
Hardly. They are much more portable than a HD-based iPod. And that's far more important to most people than storage space. The Nano is also a lot more rugged - it will take a beating, while the HD iPod would fail with rough treatment.
I don't see the need for massive storage space, anyway. Do you listen to your entire music library in a single day?
the currency of an image-- really all images-- has been lowered as a result.
But why is that a problem? Images were given way too much currency and authority to begin with. So it's appropriate that the currency of an image falls to a more realistic level.
it could be simple: post image acquisition processing that adds or subtracts anything but brightness, contrast, and chroma values or crops of the actual initially captured image. The rest is alteration, and needs to be identified as such.
Again, that's pretty meaningless. Large enough changes in brightness or color can also be used to obscure or distort. And if post-capture cropping is a problem - then aren't all photographs suspect? All photographs are crops of reality. They are defined by their (usually rectangular) boundary. The photographer chooses what gets included when s/he takes the picture.
With your rules as written, a photographer could create massive distortions or lies without any post-processing at all, and not have to apply a disclaimer. Or an image that has some irrelevant space cropped out would have to carry the "altered" disclaimer, even if it does not alter the "truth" of the image.
Your idea just can't work. In fact, it would have the opposite effect than you intend. It would train people to trust or not trust an image, based on an arbitrary designation. The really big lies would come out with a "not altered" stamp of approval (as the lying would be done when the image is taken, not in Photoshop) - and important items of truth would be disregarded simply because they have been enhanced.
So now we have to be skeptical of everything? We can take nothing at face value, and not trust in anything? I think not
Yes, we have to, to an extent. Trust basically has to be earned, or gathered with evidence. People used to think the sun revolved around the earth, until skeptical people looked more closely.
Your bold-faced claim that "photography is not a facsimile of reality" is what's numbed you.
But that's the truth of the matter. Look at the history of photography, look at the theory. Try it for yourself. Photographs lie, without Photoshop being involved. If you trust the "truth" of an image, just because it hasn't been "altered", then you're just as vulnerable to being lied to. Perhaps even more so.
Instead, if it's real-- great! If not, it needs a disclaimer indicating that it's altered reality.
But it's never "real". All photographs are an altered reality. You seem to be evading the question of what constitutes an altered photograph. Lenses alter the perspective of photographs. The choice of angle can hide things, or reveal others.
Think about an "unaltered" (without Photoshop, etc) image of a person. Now, what if it happened that just outside the frame, there was a person holding a gun to the head of the person in the photograph, but the photographer decided not to include that? Would that not alter the "reality" of the photograph?
In contrast, take an image that has been processed in Photoshop, to enhance the contrast, or improve the colors to make them more natural. Is that a lie, because it's been altered in Photoshop, even though the subject has not changed?
So, how do you define alteration? What criteria do you use to require a disclaimer?
There are still facts, there is still the truth, and we need to seek it.
Indeed, and all the evidence and facts gathered over the last century or so, show that photography simply cannot be automatically taken for reality or truth. They can reflect truth, but they definitely alter reality.
Ummm... it's actually the 21st Century, that was the joke. Anyway, what counts as "manipulated"? Choice of lens? Cropping something out of the picture? Choosing not to photograph something in the vicinity?
Deceit? As was said about the cinema - "the camera lies at 24 frames per second." The idea of "truth" in photography, as I said in my previous post, is long dead.
Your statement is meaningless, because photography is not a facsimile of reality. Every photograph is manipulated to some degree. So, a warning would have to be applied to every photo ever published. Which would make the warning useless.
How about simply using common sense, educating people, and maintaining healthy skepticism instead?
As for me, though, this is not a problem, because I love my country and especially that wonderful President of ours. God has truly blessed us to give us such intelligent, caring, and well-groomed leaders.
Well then, you'll be the first with your back against the wall when the revolution comes, won't you?
photoshop. Never before have we altered images and passed them off for what the photographer actually saw; it's deceiptful.
Say what? Manipulation of photographs has been happening since the invention of photography. The idea that a photograph is an undiluted facsimile of reality was debunked long before computers were even invented. Maybe one day you'll be ready to enter the 20th Century!
I almost wish a few people who still value privacy would start filing formal complaints with the appropriate courts/regulatory authorities, so social networking sites get the message that they only get to collect data with people's informed consent.
That just brings us right back to the questions posted in this writeup. Taking legal action is just going to alienate your Facebook using friends even more.
What I find the most ironic, is that in the earlyish days of the web (and before that, USENET), I was an active participant in online communities. For that, I would often be labeled as an anti-social dork. But today, I'm labeled an anti-social dork because I don't participate in most online communities. Sigh.
Ahhh, but the post I was replying to wasn't referring only to new formats. It said "a new media technology". CD-R and DVD-R were new media technologies, even if the underlying format was the same. Anyway, on to your points:
Yep. I've got a Blu-Ray burner. Adopting Blu-Ray is a competitive advantage, particularly in areas like wedding videography (not that I ever want to videotape a wedding again). The newly-weds usually get a massive HDTV as a wedding present. Being able to view their wedding in all its HD glory is worth it, even if they have to go and buy a PS3 or Blu-Ray player.
Anyway, the logic still works with new mediums. Digital video or digital photography for example. The earlier you start, the better a head-start you get.
Let's step back a bit, and think about the average consumer. It often makes sense in that realm, too. Sure, you may pay a bit more to buy something early - but you get years of extra use and enjoyment out of it. Let's take the topic of this thread - the PS3 has hardly dropped much in price over the last year. It hasn't even dropped that much from the original price. Plus, the early adopters got a superior machine in many respects, because the first models had full PS2 compatibility because they had the PS2 processor built-in to them. Later models omitted this hardware, so cannot play PS2 games. So, being a late adopter in this case, means you get an inferior machine, and don't get to enjoy it until a couple of years later.
For many people, the early adopter's tax divided by the number of years/months of extra use and enjoyment is well worth it.
That's not really fair. If you give responsibility to a 13 year old, and make sure they live up to it, then things run just fine
I never disputed that point. I simply pointed out the fallacy of arguing that something is right, just because "traditional societies" did it. Some traditional societies performed human sacrifices. Does that mean that we should sacrifice humans?
It's the west that has fucked up, by gradually removing "responsibility", until basically people are now in their 20's before they have to fend for themselves.
Uhhh, why just the West? To the extent that it exists, it's a global phenomenon.
It's also debatable. in many ways, children take on responsibilities earlier, that children of yesteryear never had.
And why should children (or adults) have to "fend for themselves" anyway? The whole idea of a society is that people help each other to survive in ways that would not be possible for an individual. It would be stupid to pit oneself against the world alone, not to take advantage of social structures like family, friends, government, and business. Did people in traditional societies not sleep together under one roof? Did they not go hunting in groups?
And we wonder why things are getting so screwed up in the west.
Again, why just the "West"? Lots of things are screwed up in the East, the Middle East, the North, the South. And lots of things are just great, and much better than they were in the past.
I think you might be looking at the past with rose-colored glasses. And that's why I wrote my earlier post. People see a phrase like "traditional societies" and think of a storybook image, ignoring all the serious problems that societies had in the "traditional" days. It also ignores the fact that we are also an extension of those cultures, and plenty of tradition still abounds. Not all of it is good, not all of it is bad.
So, what's a culture? What makes a society? Where do you draw the lines between the rights of a culture or society, and the rights of an individual?
Also, I don't recall the person you are replying to saying that we should force anything on other people. Just that free speech is meaningless unless it's completely free. How does that result in the conclusion that it's about forcing people to do something?
Slashdot Mirror
flares can cause interference too, especially at high altitude
And yet they still let people wear bellbottoms on planes.
Your comment was modded down because it was retarded, and showed zero insight into the problem. It didn't even demonstrate basic thinking.
That you got modded up for whining about being modded down is a travesty.
Except the autopilot isn't using GPS data directly for piloting the plane. It is using the more accurate Inertial Navigation System. GPS is just a source of backup data.
If it was wide open it would absolutely sweep the market
Now there's a statement without any evidence to support it. Do you really believe there are tens of millions of cellphone consumers who would have bought the iPhone, but decided not to because "it's not open"?
And that's why the slashdot denizen's original assessment of the iPod's usefulness and success was right on the money?
The Nano is a rip-off.
Hardly. They are much more portable than a HD-based iPod. And that's far more important to most people than storage space. The Nano is also a lot more rugged - it will take a beating, while the HD iPod would fail with rough treatment.
I don't see the need for massive storage space, anyway. Do you listen to your entire music library in a single day?
$300 iPod? Just buy a used one for $50 (or less, depending on the model).
the currency of an image-- really all images-- has been lowered as a result.
But why is that a problem? Images were given way too much currency and authority to begin with. So it's appropriate that the currency of an image falls to a more realistic level.
it could be simple: post image acquisition processing that adds or subtracts anything but brightness, contrast, and chroma values or crops of the actual initially captured image. The rest is alteration, and needs to be identified as such.
Again, that's pretty meaningless. Large enough changes in brightness or color can also be used to obscure or distort. And if post-capture cropping is a problem - then aren't all photographs suspect? All photographs are crops of reality. They are defined by their (usually rectangular) boundary. The photographer chooses what gets included when s/he takes the picture.
With your rules as written, a photographer could create massive distortions or lies without any post-processing at all, and not have to apply a disclaimer. Or an image that has some irrelevant space cropped out would have to carry the "altered" disclaimer, even if it does not alter the "truth" of the image.
Your idea just can't work. In fact, it would have the opposite effect than you intend. It would train people to trust or not trust an image, based on an arbitrary designation. The really big lies would come out with a "not altered" stamp of approval (as the lying would be done when the image is taken, not in Photoshop) - and important items of truth would be disregarded simply because they have been enhanced.
So now we have to be skeptical of everything? We can take nothing at face value, and not trust in anything? I think not
Yes, we have to, to an extent. Trust basically has to be earned, or gathered with evidence. People used to think the sun revolved around the earth, until skeptical people looked more closely.
Your bold-faced claim that "photography is not a facsimile of reality" is what's numbed you.
But that's the truth of the matter. Look at the history of photography, look at the theory. Try it for yourself. Photographs lie, without Photoshop being involved. If you trust the "truth" of an image, just because it hasn't been "altered", then you're just as vulnerable to being lied to. Perhaps even more so.
Instead, if it's real-- great! If not, it needs a disclaimer indicating that it's altered reality.
But it's never "real". All photographs are an altered reality. You seem to be evading the question of what constitutes an altered photograph. Lenses alter the perspective of photographs. The choice of angle can hide things, or reveal others.
Think about an "unaltered" (without Photoshop, etc) image of a person. Now, what if it happened that just outside the frame, there was a person holding a gun to the head of the person in the photograph, but the photographer decided not to include that? Would that not alter the "reality" of the photograph?
In contrast, take an image that has been processed in Photoshop, to enhance the contrast, or improve the colors to make them more natural. Is that a lie, because it's been altered in Photoshop, even though the subject has not changed?
So, how do you define alteration? What criteria do you use to require a disclaimer?
There are still facts, there is still the truth, and we need to seek it.
Indeed, and all the evidence and facts gathered over the last century or so, show that photography simply cannot be automatically taken for reality or truth. They can reflect truth, but they definitely alter reality.
Have you got some kind of grudge against bidets?
Ummm... it's actually the 21st Century, that was the joke. Anyway, what counts as "manipulated"? Choice of lens? Cropping something out of the picture? Choosing not to photograph something in the vicinity?
Deceit? As was said about the cinema - "the camera lies at 24 frames per second." The idea of "truth" in photography, as I said in my previous post, is long dead.
Your statement is meaningless, because photography is not a facsimile of reality. Every photograph is manipulated to some degree. So, a warning would have to be applied to every photo ever published. Which would make the warning useless.
How about simply using common sense, educating people, and maintaining healthy skepticism instead?
Overclocking is a long, slow process. You take the smallest steps possible to find the limits of the hardware then stop a notch or two below that.
So, why bother? A long, slow, risky process that has approximately zero real-world benefit. Sounds like a waste of time to me.
As for me, though, this is not a problem, because I love my country and especially that wonderful President of ours. God has truly blessed us to give us such intelligent, caring, and well-groomed leaders.
Well then, you'll be the first with your back against the wall when the revolution comes, won't you?
photoshop. Never before have we altered images and passed them off for what the photographer actually saw; it's deceiptful.
Say what? Manipulation of photographs has been happening since the invention of photography. The idea that a photograph is an undiluted facsimile of reality was debunked long before computers were even invented. Maybe one day you'll be ready to enter the 20th Century!
I get the privacy of the home: gay sex, drugs, communism, ect. not wanting to be shared,
But... but... communism wants to be shared!
Hmmm... come to think of it, so do gay sex and drugs.
Can a friend put your picture on his geocities page?
Wait, geocities still exists???
The NYTimes thinks I'm a 98 year old woman in Afghanistan, who makes less than $20K/yr as the CEO of her own company.
And that's why they give you the fake news, instead of the real articles..
Yeah, what he said. I have a facebook account which thinks I'm a 108 year old man in the zip code 01234, where ever that is.
OMG! We've finally found Dick Cheney! Does there happen to be a man-sized safe beside your computer?
I almost wish a few people who still value privacy would start filing formal complaints with the appropriate courts/regulatory authorities, so social networking sites get the message that they only get to collect data with people's informed consent.
That just brings us right back to the questions posted in this writeup. Taking legal action is just going to alienate your Facebook using friends even more.
What I find the most ironic, is that in the earlyish days of the web (and before that, USENET), I was an active participant in online communities. For that, I would often be labeled as an anti-social dork. But today, I'm labeled an anti-social dork because I don't participate in most online communities. Sigh.
Well, if it's a Powerbook 5300, it might have a stroke and then self-immolate.
Ahhh, but the post I was replying to wasn't referring only to new formats. It said "a new media technology". CD-R and DVD-R were new media technologies, even if the underlying format was the same. Anyway, on to your points:
Yep. I've got a Blu-Ray burner. Adopting Blu-Ray is a competitive advantage, particularly in areas like wedding videography (not that I ever want to videotape a wedding again). The newly-weds usually get a massive HDTV as a wedding present. Being able to view their wedding in all its HD glory is worth it, even if they have to go and buy a PS3 or Blu-Ray player.
Anyway, the logic still works with new mediums. Digital video or digital photography for example. The earlier you start, the better a head-start you get.
Let's step back a bit, and think about the average consumer. It often makes sense in that realm, too. Sure, you may pay a bit more to buy something early - but you get years of extra use and enjoyment out of it. Let's take the topic of this thread - the PS3 has hardly dropped much in price over the last year. It hasn't even dropped that much from the original price. Plus, the early adopters got a superior machine in many respects, because the first models had full PS2 compatibility because they had the PS2 processor built-in to them. Later models omitted this hardware, so cannot play PS2 games. So, being a late adopter in this case, means you get an inferior machine, and don't get to enjoy it until a couple of years later.
For many people, the early adopter's tax divided by the number of years/months of extra use and enjoyment is well worth it.
That's not really fair. If you give responsibility to a 13 year old, and make sure they live up to it, then things run just fine
I never disputed that point. I simply pointed out the fallacy of arguing that something is right, just because "traditional societies" did it. Some traditional societies performed human sacrifices. Does that mean that we should sacrifice humans?
It's the west that has fucked up, by gradually removing "responsibility", until basically people are now in their 20's before they have to fend for themselves.
Uhhh, why just the West? To the extent that it exists, it's a global phenomenon.
It's also debatable. in many ways, children take on responsibilities earlier, that children of yesteryear never had.
And why should children (or adults) have to "fend for themselves" anyway? The whole idea of a society is that people help each other to survive in ways that would not be possible for an individual. It would be stupid to pit oneself against the world alone, not to take advantage of social structures like family, friends, government, and business. Did people in traditional societies not sleep together under one roof? Did they not go hunting in groups?
And we wonder why things are getting so screwed up in the west.
Again, why just the "West"? Lots of things are screwed up in the East, the Middle East, the North, the South. And lots of things are just great, and much better than they were in the past.
I think you might be looking at the past with rose-colored glasses. And that's why I wrote my earlier post. People see a phrase like "traditional societies" and think of a storybook image, ignoring all the serious problems that societies had in the "traditional" days. It also ignores the fact that we are also an extension of those cultures, and plenty of tradition still abounds. Not all of it is good, not all of it is bad.
Sure the kids might still speed, and do 80mph. But as fast as 80mph is its a lot slower than 100mph and beyond.
Uhhh, the examples you cite are about people doing 100 kilometers an hour and beyond, not miles per hour. There's a big difference there.
Secondly, I doubt a Ford Focus can do much above 100 mph.
OK, so why should it survive if it can't survive dissent? Must be a pretty weak-ass society. Societies should expect dissent. It's unrealistic not to.
So, what's a culture? What makes a society? Where do you draw the lines between the rights of a culture or society, and the rights of an individual?
Also, I don't recall the person you are replying to saying that we should force anything on other people. Just that free speech is meaningless unless it's completely free. How does that result in the conclusion that it's about forcing people to do something?