Somehow I'm pretty sure they've heeded the market's opinion but you won't see the consequences of it before Windows 7. Which makes me bet they won't wait 5 years to release that one.
Maybe a script wrote it by detecting some words in the description.
Oh, damn, I didn't think anyone would figure it out. Well since you asked, here's how it really works:
root@localhost# memebot.sh --sovietrussia --overlords --beowulf --linux --underpants memebot 2.4-debian Copyright (C) 2008 Michel Rouzic MemeBot is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions.
> Maybe a script wrote it by detecting some words in the description.
Found : 5 results in 0.063 seconds. 1. In Soviet Russia, words in descriptions detect scripts. 2. I, for one, welcome our new humour-making script overlords. 3. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these! 4. But does it run on Linux? 5. 1. Write a nerd humour generating script. 2. Make it parse and reply anonymously to Slashdot comments. 3. ???. 4. Mod points!!!
I said it before and I'll say it again, the Earth is a giant micro-waved jawbreaker, and it's warming up! Y'all laughed at me, just wait until you get licked to death by the giant tongue from outer space, or burnt to death once it explodes.
Google for "medical research foster childeren new york" and you will find a case where somebody without ethics decided that people should be volunteered for medical research.
WTF, I googled for it and it didn't return any results. They don't want us to hear the truth, dude.
for the sake of one human being we cannot loose our humanity
That's right, that would be just immoral and unethical to try to save that person. Not helping him and letting him die slowly from his horrible disease is the only humane thing to do.
Even if the medicine your father would get would really work, the only way to be certain is dissection, your father would have to be killed after the experimental drugs were administred to be certain it was the drugs that cured him and not something else.
How insightful, sounds like you know damn well how clinical trials on people are conducted.
"Congratulations Mr. Smith! Thanks to our new retro-viral treatment we have vanquished every last cancerous cell in your body. You only had 6 months to live, now you could live to see your great grand-children grow up. Don't thank me quite yet, Mr. Smith. When you signed up for this treatment you agreed for us to kill you and cut you open to be certain it was the drugs that cured you and not something else. Life is unfair Mr. Smith, life is unfair!"
It's the government's responsibility [...] to make sure they're not being abused. [...] We could just have the people who birthed each child be the ones responsible for them
The irony is that most of this abuse you want to prevent is perpetrated by these people you want to rely on.
You're just another nobody because your pictures on MySpace are not very different from someone else's pictures? I love it when people who realise they have something in common with lots of other people start to question their own uniqueness.
My question is, does every story have all of this racism and homophobia nonsense attached to it, or is this something new?
It's always like this. Usually it makes up the half of the first dozen of comments. As for why they do that, my guess is they're both bored and frustrated, so they come here to anonymously say The Forbidden Word (the "N word") and such as often as they can as they feel they can't do that in real life. I don't think they actually care what people think or say, they probably are just comforted by the idea that a handful of people will read the things they anonymously wrote which they wouldn't actually dare say.
I prefer downloading torrents rather than watching a show on the web, but sometimes you can't find a show anywhere but on the TV stations website, so I watched one such show on mtv.com, and err, I don't mind a commercial break, even if it's one commercial every ten minutes, but at least, PLEASE, don't make it be the same fucking el cheapo commercial every single fucking time!
I mean come on, what are you trying to achieve by showing your viewers the same commercial 7 fucking times during a TV show? Will I want to subscribe to Verizon because they interrupted my show 7 times to tell me that "Science is wrong, the world revolves around you" and that because of that I needed unlimited plans or whatever it was they were trying to sell to me (yeah, I saw that commercial like 30 times, I remember every word of it, except the last few which were about what they were trying to sell to me. Oh, and was it Verizon or Vodafone?)? Fat chance, I don't even live in the US!
My point? Oh yeah, if they want Web "TV" to go anywhere as serious as regular TV, they need to be serious about it. Showing many times during a show the same commercial that is so cheap that it doesn't even contain images filmed with an actual camera makes it sound like no one could even be arsed to find more than one company to advertise for, and that this company couldn't be arsed to produce a half decent commercial. I get the feeling that they have no clue what they're missing out.
Sorry, I know nobody likes a grammar Nazi, but I've gotta do this, it's for your own good.
That's "similar", not "simular"
That's "1500s", not "1500's", and you get a bonus point if you say "the 16th century" instead, and a bonus cookie if you can write that in Roman numerals.
That's "transcontinental", not "Trans contental"
That's "nor", not "nore"
In English, country names, nationalities and languages start with an uppercase letter, so that's "American" not "american"
That"s "cruise", not "cruse"
That's "government", not "governemnt"
When you're comparing two things and that you hesitate between "then" and "than", it's "than", not "then"
"their jollies", not "they jollies"
That's "affordable", not "afordable"
That's "mostly anyone", not "most anyone"
Also, you don't need start every noun with an uppercase letter, only Germans do that. And to the rest of you who are about to suggest me that the parent poster may not be a native English speaker, look at his website, his name sounds awfully Anglo-Saxon and it says he studied in Connecticut (and no need to point out an eventual typo I may have made, I'm dysgraphic, I can't type a sentence right without proof-reading).
Oh, and I'm not a native English speaker, actually, I'm French. Ouch, I know, it hurts.
It's occurred to me for a few years that Gallileo is the perfect example of why wikipedia is flawed.
I disagree. In Galileo's time, there was no scientific consensus in favour of his theories. Therefore, if Wikipedia had existed by then, he could have gotten a few paragraphs or even a few articles regarding his work while acknowledging it as controversial work. With this respect I don't see how Wikipedia is flawed, unless we assume that Galileo would solely have tried to publish his work by vandalising Wikipedia, which no serious scientist would do as a sole effort of promoting their findings.
Next time you might try something other than wikipedia.
Hey, thanks a lot, douchebag! Yeah I wonder why I even thought of looking into an encyclopedia before looking into 8029.pdf for a single line that merely says "Mercury's surface might look like Apollo 16's landing site". Besides, since you seem to know it all, why is Mercury generally depicted as brown then?
Why the hell would they corrupt their data with anti-aliasing in the first place??
Hahaha, damn man, you need a clue. If you're gonna capture a signal, if you're gonna do it properly, it's going to be "anti-aliased", that means components above the Nyquist frequency will be filtered out so that they don't "fold" back under the Nyquist frequency, therefore anti-aliasing is not "corruption". Besides, the reason why images taken with a digital camera are naturally "anti-aliased" is that captors that match to a pixel in the image are large enough to fill the grid, meaning they catch all the light in that area, and not just in one tiny point, which is why there's no aliasing.
As for cosmic rays, a single cosmic ray will hit only one electronic component, and if it's a camera captor it will manifest itself as a single white pixel, which is why it won't get "anti-aliased", because it will only hit one captor.
I think it's either just noise from the camera, or possibly the effect of cosmic rays hitting the camera CCD.
Considered out these supposed 'stars' consists in single pixels, and not a pack of 4 pixels as it should be due to anti-alisaing (if we can put it that way), the cosmic rays explanation sounds better.
I think they went with B/W images to actually get better results with the camera.
No. The NASA doesn't use cameras with Bayer grids (pixel-sized red, green and blue filters) as we have in normal cameras because they care about much more than just visible colours so they have an unfiltered camera and they rotate before its lens a bunch of filters that includes red, green and blue filters but also infra-red and ultraviolet as well as polarized filters. The pictures we see are in B&W because as of now they didn't yet put together pictures taken with different filters in order to produce true or "false" colour images.
Can you back that claim? Besides, it doesn't seem like it's actually grey, considered this photograph with approximated colours and most illustrations and maps of Mercury that show it as brownish.
The pictures are in black in white because they didn't bother yet to put together pictures from different colour filters together, which is a matter of time before that happens (which makes me wish they would just release the raw images as soon as they get it just as they do with Cassini). As for the smoothness of the approach video, we can assume that they didn't try to make a cool video as they did with the Earth but that they were just trying to get a few shots on the first side of Mercury, and keep most of the ressources to making mosaics of pictures on the as of then yet unknown side of Mercury.
Keep in mind that it doesn't work like your camera too, your camera consists of captors with red, green and blue filters on them. MESSENGER's camera don't have any such thing, they are unfiltered and have a bunch of filters of different colours (including infra-red and ultraviolet colours) that rotates before the camera's lens.
Then *if* the NASA wants to make colour pictures out of them (which presents little scientific interest, which is why they don't bother much to show you coloured pictures), they put together images taken with the red, green and blue filters (or sometimes other filters and label the result "false colours").
And you're right, Mercury is not grey, and actually it seems that we don't even have true colour pictures of it yet (which should change within the next few days), but that is the best approximation we can get yet (but as you can see it's based on only a blue filter and no filter, so the accuracy of the portrayed colours is quite questionable). But as I said don't worry, soon enough we'll get a crapload of super-high res colour mosaics of the planet, and even maybe stereo images and what not.
Slashdot Mirror
But will Microsoft really listen?
Somehow I'm pretty sure they've heeded the market's opinion but you won't see the consequences of it before Windows 7. Which makes me bet they won't wait 5 years to release that one.
French police surrender to Linux
More like they farted in Microsoft's general direction.
Real men use Blackbox.
Real men don't touch no damn mouse, for icons and windows are for pansies. Saves them the hassle of having to tidy the desktop.
That's nearly a tonne...
That is a tonne. An imperial tonne that is.
Maybe a script wrote it by detecting some words in the description.
Oh, damn, I didn't think anyone would figure it out. Well since you asked, here's how it really works :
I said it before and I'll say it again, the Earth is a giant micro-waved jawbreaker, and it's warming up! Y'all laughed at me, just wait until you get licked to death by the giant tongue from outer space, or burnt to death once it explodes.
It turns up this article and you saying that now.
Well it didn't at the time I posted because that was before Google indexed the comment I was replying too, aduuuuh.
at least try not being a complete moron and don't use quotes around your search criteria in Google
WHOOSH! That was the joke, you triple imbecile!
while at the same time failing to make a complete sentence.
What the hell are you talking about, fool?
Google for "medical research foster childeren new york" and you will find a case where somebody without ethics decided that people should be volunteered for medical research.
WTF, I googled for it and it didn't return any results. They don't want us to hear the truth, dude.
for the sake of one human being we cannot loose our humanity
That's right, that would be just immoral and unethical to try to save that person. Not helping him and letting him die slowly from his horrible disease is the only humane thing to do.
Even if the medicine your father would get would really work, the only way to be certain is dissection, your father would have to be killed after the experimental drugs were administred to be certain it was the drugs that cured him and not something else.
How insightful, sounds like you know damn well how clinical trials on people are conducted.
"Congratulations Mr. Smith! Thanks to our new retro-viral treatment we have vanquished every last cancerous cell in your body. You only had 6 months to live, now you could live to see your great grand-children grow up. Don't thank me quite yet, Mr. Smith. When you signed up for this treatment you agreed for us to kill you and cut you open to be certain it was the drugs that cured you and not something else. Life is unfair Mr. Smith, life is unfair!"
It's the government's responsibility [...] to make sure they're not being abused. [...] We could just have the people who birthed each child be the ones responsible for them
The irony is that most of this abuse you want to prevent is perpetrated by these people you want to rely on.
you are just another nobody
You're just another nobody because your pictures on MySpace are not very different from someone else's pictures? I love it when people who realise they have something in common with lots of other people start to question their own uniqueness.
Recount Proves No Fraud
Sure, or maybe everybody frauded in a self canceling way.
</double tinfoil hat>
I think it reads as 'you-mean-due-on'
And, thanks, I was about to look Google up to find out who Ueon is.
Ain't there traffic controllers in charge of making sure that doesn't happen? And you're not concerned with the odds of hitting a weather balloon?
My question is, does every story have all of this racism and homophobia nonsense attached to it, or is this something new?
It's always like this. Usually it makes up the half of the first dozen of comments. As for why they do that, my guess is they're both bored and frustrated, so they come here to anonymously say The Forbidden Word (the "N word") and such as often as they can as they feel they can't do that in real life. I don't think they actually care what people think or say, they probably are just comforted by the idea that a handful of people will read the things they anonymously wrote which they wouldn't actually dare say.
I prefer downloading torrents rather than watching a show on the web, but sometimes you can't find a show anywhere but on the TV stations website, so I watched one such show on mtv.com, and err, I don't mind a commercial break, even if it's one commercial every ten minutes, but at least, PLEASE, don't make it be the same fucking el cheapo commercial every single fucking time!
I mean come on, what are you trying to achieve by showing your viewers the same commercial 7 fucking times during a TV show? Will I want to subscribe to Verizon because they interrupted my show 7 times to tell me that "Science is wrong, the world revolves around you" and that because of that I needed unlimited plans or whatever it was they were trying to sell to me (yeah, I saw that commercial like 30 times, I remember every word of it, except the last few which were about what they were trying to sell to me. Oh, and was it Verizon or Vodafone?)? Fat chance, I don't even live in the US!
My point? Oh yeah, if they want Web "TV" to go anywhere as serious as regular TV, they need to be serious about it. Showing many times during a show the same commercial that is so cheap that it doesn't even contain images filmed with an actual camera makes it sound like no one could even be arsed to find more than one company to advertise for, and that this company couldn't be arsed to produce a half decent commercial. I get the feeling that they have no clue what they're missing out.
Sorry, I know nobody likes a grammar Nazi, but I've gotta do this, it's for your own good.
That's "similar", not "simular"
That's "1500s", not "1500's", and you get a bonus point if you say "the 16th century" instead, and a bonus cookie if you can write that in Roman numerals.
That's "transcontinental", not "Trans contental"
That's "nor", not "nore"
In English, country names, nationalities and languages start with an uppercase letter, so that's "American" not "american"
That"s "cruise", not "cruse"
That's "government", not "governemnt"
When you're comparing two things and that you hesitate between "then" and "than", it's "than", not "then"
"their jollies", not "they jollies"
That's "affordable", not "afordable"
That's "mostly anyone", not "most anyone"
Also, you don't need start every noun with an uppercase letter, only Germans do that. And to the rest of you who are about to suggest me that the parent poster may not be a native English speaker, look at his website, his name sounds awfully Anglo-Saxon and it says he studied in Connecticut (and no need to point out an eventual typo I may have made, I'm dysgraphic, I can't type a sentence right without proof-reading).
Oh, and I'm not a native English speaker, actually, I'm French. Ouch, I know, it hurts.
It's occurred to me for a few years that Gallileo is the perfect example of why wikipedia is flawed.
I disagree. In Galileo's time, there was no scientific consensus in favour of his theories. Therefore, if Wikipedia had existed by then, he could have gotten a few paragraphs or even a few articles regarding his work while acknowledging it as controversial work. With this respect I don't see how Wikipedia is flawed, unless we assume that Galileo would solely have tried to publish his work by vandalising Wikipedia, which no serious scientist would do as a sole effort of promoting their findings.
Next time you might try something other than wikipedia.
Hey, thanks a lot, douchebag! Yeah I wonder why I even thought of looking into an encyclopedia before looking into 8029.pdf for a single line that merely says "Mercury's surface might look like Apollo 16's landing site". Besides, since you seem to know it all, why is Mercury generally depicted as brown then?
Why the hell would they corrupt their data with anti-aliasing in the first place??
Hahaha, damn man, you need a clue. If you're gonna capture a signal, if you're gonna do it properly, it's going to be "anti-aliased", that means components above the Nyquist frequency will be filtered out so that they don't "fold" back under the Nyquist frequency, therefore anti-aliasing is not "corruption". Besides, the reason why images taken with a digital camera are naturally "anti-aliased" is that captors that match to a pixel in the image are large enough to fill the grid, meaning they catch all the light in that area, and not just in one tiny point, which is why there's no aliasing.
As for cosmic rays, a single cosmic ray will hit only one electronic component, and if it's a camera captor it will manifest itself as a single white pixel, which is why it won't get "anti-aliased", because it will only hit one captor.
I think it's either just noise from the camera, or possibly the effect of cosmic rays hitting the camera CCD.
Considered out these supposed 'stars' consists in single pixels, and not a pack of 4 pixels as it should be due to anti-alisaing (if we can put it that way), the cosmic rays explanation sounds better.
It's the 21st century damnit, and people don't use the word "learnt" anymore.
Ha! You clearly haven't heard of the recent 'abandoned' irregular verbs revival. "Learned" is so 2007, man.
I think they went with B/W images to actually get better results with the camera.
No. The NASA doesn't use cameras with Bayer grids (pixel-sized red, green and blue filters) as we have in normal cameras because they care about much more than just visible colours so they have an unfiltered camera and they rotate before its lens a bunch of filters that includes red, green and blue filters but also infra-red and ultraviolet as well as polarized filters. The pictures we see are in B&W because as of now they didn't yet put together pictures taken with different filters in order to produce true or "false" colour images.
The surface is nearly colorless
Can you back that claim? Besides, it doesn't seem like it's actually grey, considered this photograph with approximated colours and most illustrations and maps of Mercury that show it as brownish.
The pictures are in black in white because they didn't bother yet to put together pictures from different colour filters together, which is a matter of time before that happens (which makes me wish they would just release the raw images as soon as they get it just as they do with Cassini). As for the smoothness of the approach video, we can assume that they didn't try to make a cool video as they did with the Earth but that they were just trying to get a few shots on the first side of Mercury, and keep most of the ressources to making mosaics of pictures on the as of then yet unknown side of Mercury.
Keep in mind that it doesn't work like your camera too, your camera consists of captors with red, green and blue filters on them. MESSENGER's camera don't have any such thing, they are unfiltered and have a bunch of filters of different colours (including infra-red and ultraviolet colours) that rotates before the camera's lens.
Then *if* the NASA wants to make colour pictures out of them (which presents little scientific interest, which is why they don't bother much to show you coloured pictures), they put together images taken with the red, green and blue filters (or sometimes other filters and label the result "false colours").
And you're right, Mercury is not grey, and actually it seems that we don't even have true colour pictures of it yet (which should change within the next few days), but that is the best approximation we can get yet (but as you can see it's based on only a blue filter and no filter, so the accuracy of the portrayed colours is quite questionable). But as I said don't worry, soon enough we'll get a crapload of super-high res colour mosaics of the planet, and even maybe stereo images and what not.
the person does not die
Outsider point of view..