He/she apparently knows dick-all about cryptography and was just trolling. His/her usage of the bogus term "unencrypt" gave this away even before the BS claim itself.
Not so bogus now. Do some research before you attempt another half-assed deconstructively-critical comment. Not everyone in the world conforms to the same words in a language. "Pants" means something entirely different in England and America.
Screenshots? Lame. Ever heard of network packet sniffing? It's impossible to send "safe" messages across the internet. Your ISP can log every packet you send and possibly unencrypt it should it be encrypted. And of course the ISPs are multi-billion dollar a year companies owned by the same people who run the government and the world so you can forget about "safe" messaging.
Poster doesn't know how to read... From webpage: NO LIQUIDS OR GELS OF ANY KIND WILL BE PERMITTED IN CARRY-ON BAGGAGE. ITEMS MUST BE IN CHECKED BAGGAGE. This includes all beverages, shampoo, suntan lotion, creams, tooth paste, hair gel, and other items of similar consistency.
Items must be in checked baggage only, big deal. I store all my liquids in my checked baggage anyway. Just another far left liberal complaining about shit without reading it first.
You are forgetting of course that the president has stated that he is above the law and doesn't need to follow the constitution because it's "a goddamned piece of paper" and doesn't have to get warrants or go through congress because it's in his "constitutional powers". This just throws the government one step closer to complete totalitarian leadership without the need of any probable cause or even a reason to spy on anyone and not have it be illegal anymore.
At first i disagreed, but then I realized, what's to stop a rival search engine from making everything google show up low in it's searches?
Anti-trust can only exist when the smaller entity does not have the ability to better it's position because of a monopoly. Not only does google NOT have a monopoly (msn, yahoo), but competing search engines have an equal opportunity to build better software and better their position in the market.
i was about to correct "foundme", until i saw "programer". Thus i realized that a programer is someone who uses visual basic/ASP, otherwise known as, horrible MS languages.
Programmers tend to use real languages, like PHP, C, Perl, etc, none of which use "then".
Maybe people still end up with it because #1 IE is still the #1 browser, #2, don't you think the spyware programmers try to make it so you'll end up with spyware regardless of what you know or don't know?
You just missed the point entirely and should be modded down as redudant, especially the bit about why tv is going digital, everyone already knows all that crap you just spewed, now re-read what I said.
HDTV is where we are at, it's not going to change for many years. If film gets degraded when converted to digital then you have just proved it's inferiority. Everything from now on is going to be converted to digital whether or not analog purists give a shit. Digital is the future, and that future is rapidly approaching.
More on topic: TNT HD vs. PBS HD based on quality in the eyes of the consumers, who have spent billions on HDTV's, is all that matters. Any idiot could compare the two and say, hey, digital video straight to my digital tv is amazing! And to be frank, there's no need to even go higher in resolution, enless tv's start approaching 100 inches or more.
The simple fact is digital HD to digital HD wins hands down. I don't see tv manufacturers selling projector systems or whatever you would use to project this "higher quality film", especially since that would cost an arm and a leg. SO until that time when we can see film in it's true form short of movie theaters that aren't even that impressive, HDTV with HD video wins, hands down.
Sorry, but over here I have an HDTV television with HDTV service. On one hand I have a multitude of HD stations like TNT that shoot their shows on this "superior film" you claim. On the other hand, I have PBS HD which shoots entirely in HD video. On TNT, i notice a LOT of pops, some grain, and other film artifacts... so superior, huh? On PBS HD I notice a flawless picture, no distortions, amazing quality, more life-like than anything I have ever seen on a tv or in a theater.
Remembering of course, that there are more consumers than film techies such as some of you "film is superior" people have posted. Any consumer with a hint of common sense would look at the PBS HD and be far more impressed than any HD offerings that were shot on film.
The problem I have with this is the plain and simple fact that film lacks the quality and detail that actual high definition video captures. Simply, blowing a film picture up to 1920x1080, even from the original negatives, will not produce the same quality as HD video. The argument about enhanced definition (1280x720p) which most HDTV's can currently only do, vs. full HD (1080p) is a dead-end when talking about HD-DVD's. I for one am not waiting to see a film movie in full HD as the film grain and other artifacts will be more noticable than ever, versus the actual quality of the picture going up. I AM, however, waiting for full-HD produced movies such as Once Upon a Time in Mexico by Robert Rodriguez to come out in the full HD format. And I know a lot of slashdot readers would love to see those Lucas films that were shot in HD above the inferior 480p threshold they currently claim.
That is bullshit. If that were true: a company could argue that the government can't look at their financial records because it would incriminate them; a murderer could deny police access to their premises because they would find a body in her freezer that would incriminate her.
A murderer CAN deny access to their property even having a dead body in the freezer, enless the police have a warrant. A company CAN refuse to turn over documents enless the police have a warrant. Police can't walk in anywhere they want and/or just take things because they may or may not be incriminating, it's called probable cause. They must have enough viable reason to further their investigation, you can't just bother every citizen because you may or may not know a partial bit of information about a crime.
There is always the distinct possibility that China intends to make their own internet, obviously to be controlled, that would be SEPARATE from the actual internet. The equivalent of running 250 web servers on your local network, on a MUCH larger scale.
After reading about this that is exactly what I began to think. Not to connect to THE internet and possibly cause interoperability problems, but to be SEPARATED from THE internet.
Sorry chump, you can't break apart that sentence and analyze it point by point, i'm talking about what i've been waiting for in a FULL package. Probably stems from every computer i've owned being built by myself, I make sure every feature is perfect.
I know some JPEG compression can have good quality, except for the fact that you can't choose those levels in a camera, I've only seen that in paint shop pro (never used photoshop).
And both of you commented on poster prints. By definition a standard poster print is 20x30 and you can have an amazing poster at 5 megapixels, so 6 is more than adaquate. More than 6 megapixel for that size is just wasting extra money on the cost of the camera. You can't just cram millions of more pixels into a physical space, well, maybe if you can change DPI, which would most likely cost an arm and a leg.
I have never bought a digital camera because of this exact problem. JPG, capital S, Sucks!
I would love to see a 6 megapixel camera with lense-change ability, have a lossless format as well as PNG compression. 6 megapixel for that once in a lifetime poster print, ability to go to 4 and 2 as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Just avoid myspace.com
... I love the irony of Yahoo reporting this.
Hey, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!
He/she apparently knows dick-all about cryptography and was just trolling. His/her usage of the bogus term "unencrypt" gave this away even before the BS claim itself.
"Bogus"
Not so bogus now. Do some research before you attempt another half-assed deconstructively-critical comment. Not everyone in the world conforms to the same words in a language. "Pants" means something entirely different in England and America.
Screenshots? Lame. Ever heard of network packet sniffing? It's impossible to send "safe" messages across the internet. Your ISP can log every packet you send and possibly unencrypt it should it be encrypted. And of course the ISPs are multi-billion dollar a year companies owned by the same people who run the government and the world so you can forget about "safe" messaging.
The internet is not a truck, you can't just fill it up. The internet is a series of tubes!
Why don't you even read what I said, carry-ons. Nothing is stopping you from collecting your checked bags and getting your liquids out of them.
Poster doesn't know how to read... From webpage: NO LIQUIDS OR GELS OF ANY KIND WILL BE PERMITTED IN CARRY-ON BAGGAGE. ITEMS MUST BE IN CHECKED BAGGAGE. This includes all beverages, shampoo, suntan lotion, creams, tooth paste, hair gel, and other items of similar consistency.
Items must be in checked baggage only, big deal. I store all my liquids in my checked baggage anyway. Just another far left liberal complaining about shit without reading it first.
AOL != ISP
Do your homework and get it right next time.
I for one welcome our new Biometric Vending Machine Overlords.
MOD PARENT FUNNY!
You are forgetting of course that the president has stated that he is above the law and doesn't need to follow the constitution because it's "a goddamned piece of paper" and doesn't have to get warrants or go through congress because it's in his "constitutional powers". This just throws the government one step closer to complete totalitarian leadership without the need of any probable cause or even a reason to spy on anyone and not have it be illegal anymore.
At first i disagreed, but then I realized, what's to stop a rival search engine from making everything google show up low in it's searches?
Anti-trust can only exist when the smaller entity does not have the ability to better it's position because of a monopoly. Not only does google NOT have a monopoly (msn, yahoo), but competing search engines have an equal opportunity to build better software and better their position in the market.
i was about to correct "foundme", until i saw "programer". Thus i realized that a programer is someone who uses visual basic/ASP, otherwise known as, horrible MS languages.
Programmers tend to use real languages, like PHP, C, Perl, etc, none of which use "then".
Maybe people still end up with it because #1 IE is still the #1 browser, #2, don't you think the spyware programmers try to make it so you'll end up with spyware regardless of what you know or don't know?
maybe you should try reading about the package that has ads before you try to gain a low numbered post.
the ads come as an OPTION, they do not appear on free user accounts.
So once a pedophile learns to hack this technology, the child abduction rate climbs exponentially...
You just missed the point entirely and should be modded down as redudant, especially the bit about why tv is going digital, everyone already knows all that crap you just spewed, now re-read what I said.
HDTV is where we are at, it's not going to change for many years. If film gets degraded when converted to digital then you have just proved it's inferiority. Everything from now on is going to be converted to digital whether or not analog purists give a shit. Digital is the future, and that future is rapidly approaching.
More on topic: TNT HD vs. PBS HD based on quality in the eyes of the consumers, who have spent billions on HDTV's, is all that matters. Any idiot could compare the two and say, hey, digital video straight to my digital tv is amazing! And to be frank, there's no need to even go higher in resolution, enless tv's start approaching 100 inches or more.
The simple fact is digital HD to digital HD wins hands down. I don't see tv manufacturers selling projector systems or whatever you would use to project this "higher quality film", especially since that would cost an arm and a leg. SO until that time when we can see film in it's true form short of movie theaters that aren't even that impressive, HDTV with HD video wins, hands down.
"Film is superior to HD video"
Sorry, but over here I have an HDTV television with HDTV service. On one hand I have a multitude of HD stations like TNT that shoot their shows on this "superior film" you claim. On the other hand, I have PBS HD which shoots entirely in HD video. On TNT, i notice a LOT of pops, some grain, and other film artifacts... so superior, huh? On PBS HD I notice a flawless picture, no distortions, amazing quality, more life-like than anything I have ever seen on a tv or in a theater.
Remembering of course, that there are more consumers than film techies such as some of you "film is superior" people have posted. Any consumer with a hint of common sense would look at the PBS HD and be far more impressed than any HD offerings that were shot on film.
Check... mate...
The problem I have with this is the plain and simple fact that film lacks the quality and detail that actual high definition video captures. Simply, blowing a film picture up to 1920x1080, even from the original negatives, will not produce the same quality as HD video. The argument about enhanced definition (1280x720p) which most HDTV's can currently only do, vs. full HD (1080p) is a dead-end when talking about HD-DVD's. I for one am not waiting to see a film movie in full HD as the film grain and other artifacts will be more noticable than ever, versus the actual quality of the picture going up. I AM, however, waiting for full-HD produced movies such as Once Upon a Time in Mexico by Robert Rodriguez to come out in the full HD format. And I know a lot of slashdot readers would love to see those Lucas films that were shot in HD above the inferior 480p threshold they currently claim.
That is bullshit. If that were true: a company could argue that the government can't look at their financial records because it would incriminate them; a murderer could deny police access to their premises because they would find a body in her freezer that would incriminate her.
A murderer CAN deny access to their property even having a dead body in the freezer, enless the police have a warrant. A company CAN refuse to turn over documents enless the police have a warrant. Police can't walk in anywhere they want and/or just take things because they may or may not be incriminating, it's called probable cause. They must have enough viable reason to further their investigation, you can't just bother every citizen because you may or may not know a partial bit of information about a crime.
If you know a marine, ask him if he can see http://maddox.xmission.com/
You didn't look outside of the box on this one.
There is always the distinct possibility that China intends to make their own internet, obviously to be controlled, that would be SEPARATE from the actual internet. The equivalent of running 250 web servers on your local network, on a MUCH larger scale.
After reading about this that is exactly what I began to think. Not to connect to THE internet and possibly cause interoperability problems, but to be SEPARATED from THE internet.
"...out since 2002"
Sorry chump, you can't break apart that sentence and analyze it point by point, i'm talking about what i've been waiting for in a FULL package. Probably stems from every computer i've owned being built by myself, I make sure every feature is perfect.
I know some JPEG compression can have good quality, except for the fact that you can't choose those levels in a camera, I've only seen that in paint shop pro (never used photoshop).
And both of you commented on poster prints. By definition a standard poster print is 20x30 and you can have an amazing poster at 5 megapixels, so 6 is more than adaquate. More than 6 megapixel for that size is just wasting extra money on the cost of the camera. You can't just cram millions of more pixels into a physical space, well, maybe if you can change DPI, which would most likely cost an arm and a leg.
Making "fake" fingerprints isn't all that simple.
I guess if you're really that desperate to commit crimes you'll figure out a nice easy way to do it, won't you?
Score 5 Interesting, not hardly.
I have never bought a digital camera because of this exact problem. JPG, capital S, Sucks!
I would love to see a 6 megapixel camera with lense-change ability, have a lossless format as well as PNG compression. 6 megapixel for that once in a lifetime poster print, ability to go to 4 and 2 as well.