I first read the headline as 54.3 million and thought 'now that is a fine.' But just 4.3? I tried looking up this company and could find nothing about their revenue, prices, pay for doctors, anything. Is this a small set of clinics that doesn't give their CEO a million in expense accounts, or is it the government forgetting that companies really do compare the cost of a fine versus the cost of complying?
We should have all learned of Sony's plan after the PS3. Sure, this phone runs android right now. They may even release it with android in the furture. But as soon as they figure out that people have android apps that Sony doesn't control, poof, and away it goes. At that point, we will be lucky if it still functions as a phone. Sony might try telling us that we only bought a piece of plastic, and they made no claim to it being either a phone or a gaming system, and to feel lucky that we get to keep the chunk of plastic we bought.
But don't think of hacking that now useless piece of plastic!
So why aren't we requiring the providers to at least make available what their uptime and average data rate per customer is? They know this number, they know how much data they can move in any area. Yet they protect this information like it is a trade secret, that the average user could not possibly understand that they are offering 20MBps to the entire county while only having 200MBps backbone, and have only had an uptime over the past year of 98%.
To the GP's auto analogy, if I went to a car dealership and they offered to sell me a car that got an average of 100 mpg, could do 150mph, and only cost ten grand, I would expect those details to be explained somewhere. You know, that the car could only get that 100 mpg if you drove on a 100 mile long 10% downgrade , and that 150mph was it's airspeed in a hurricane. I would not expect them to be able to market a car as such, while knowing full and well that it was a best case only situations.
If you want to have Virginia in that list, can we adjust for what is available in NOVA and the capitol area, versus what is available in western and south-west? I know comcast will claim to provide a 25meg line, but there is no way they are getting it over 50 year old copper. And that is only in the 3 sq miles per county that they service just to get the government subsidy.
That a security leak is usually a person who thinks that the information they have is being misused, or that the public is being mislead, and is more likely to not see things the same way the average person does. Anon, having just taken on the FBI, a record of speaking out against CoS, and an aura of anarchy makes them a visible place to leak information. Remember, a security leak wants the information they have to be seen and Anon offers a very tempting public face; even if that face is just a mask.
I seriously doubt they'll be able to modify it in any meaningful way. The thing seems to have been designed specifically to hit Siemens centrifuges, which would imply that the creators had some very, very good knowledge of the software used in those centrifuges. I doubt there are too many Anons out there with enough knowledge of how natural gas systems or other dedicated industrial hardware works to do much with Stuxnet.
I would not be so certain of that. It doesn't require that the person working on the devices decides to write a virus for them; consider the extended family. Someone comes along and grabs a few of the specialist's books, maybe reference manuals, and passes those to another activist with a bit of knowledge. Suddenly, the activist has the insider knowledge necessary to target those specific plants. One would hope that a specialist worker in a nuke or gas plant would keep a tighter rein on their plant documentation, but family happens.
Libel/slander you have to both prove to be false, and prove that the person making the statement knew it to be false. Something along the lines of defamation per se, infringement on right of publicity, those you just have to prove that it actually occurred (and live in a country/state where there are laws concerning them).
Yes, we are sequestering it. We are storing it so efficiently that there is no chance of it or any other material used in these circuits ever leaching back into the environment in a landfill. It is such a closed system that in a millennium there will be no molybdenum left, it will all have leaked out into these chips. And even if could seep out of these chips, everyone uses their electronics for 100 years or more, none of them are ever disposed of.
Please, for the love of everything you hold holy, don't give green geeks a bad name. Yes, this mineral is very useful for hydroponics as has been pointed out, but that use can exist side-by-side with it's use in electronics. Hell, if it's use in electronics makes them potentially more recyclable, that would be a great improvement. But that idea that we are going to destroy this element, by moving it from one place to another inside a closed system, is absurd.
I will admit ignorance, is there something about these moly circuits that actually does sequester it in a form that plant-life is proven to be unable to use? Something about applying the common mineral form of it over another common mineral will make it as toxic as polonium? Yes, the epoxy shells that ICs are housed in is a problem, but that's something that demands it's own rational arguments and solutions. Does mixing it onto silicon make it impossible to retrieve later? Is all of this some how infinitely more disastrous than it's use as a lubricant?
I don't understand the desire to leave shows like this untouched. It is like some collecting impulse where a fan can not bear the actors coming back for another season because it might ruin the value of what they have already.
The actors get paid, we get a new season of a show we like/love/hate. Everybody wins in this regard. Except the smeg heads who hate Red Dwarf.
Which brings me to the real point of this insanity surrounding "HDR".
Q: Why do we actually need HDR?
You could just the same answer that it is because displays suck, and can not reproduce the range between dark and light that exist in the real world. Each weak spot must be conquered at a time. Really, how much marketing has gone into convincing people that HD is the furture, when we are stuck with displays that still use the sRGB color space. Yeah, it will waste bit space for imaginary colors, but getting a display that can show saturated greens and yellows would be great.
The other point to the hyper-saturated HDR images that are popular right now is just artistic style. Neo-impressionism.
You assume that data mining is a targeted process. It can be, don't get me wrong; one could pick a target and follow breadcrumbs to dig up lots of information. Usually, though, marketing agencies are not after the rich and powerful, they are after information about you and me. That information is not picked over, analyzed piece by piece for some glimmer of data that might be overlooked. It is simply stored, aggregated in a massive database of potential customers. However, you are optimistic to think that that deleted tag was ever deleted. That link, between your kids and you, their name, is now a known fact in that database; not a speculation. Any company that copied that data between when the tag was visible and when you had them delete it now owns a privileged fact about you. Alone, that probably is worthless; you could make that connection a hundred other ways and as you said you probably aren't important enough. But a database of thousands and millions of unique facts becomes worth something to another advertising or marketing company. No one is going to delete that potential gold mine. And at the moment, it isn't worth their time to process that data down to know everything about your life. But, at the current rate, it will be.
This entire process is a problem that will affect everyone at some point. Like junk mail and spam, personalized marketing will become cheaper than the alternative. And that data is already out there.
The summary is just plain wrong, and the article may be as well. First, there seems to be some massive confusion between f-stops and dynamic range 'stops'. An f-stop is your aperture setting, and is part of the control that determines how much light gets into the camera. If I go out and desire to take an HDR picture of something, the f-stop is the last control I will use in setting each exposure. The f-stop has the side effect of changing the depth of focus, thats covered in photography 101. If you change that in a set of pictures, some things will be in focus in one frame, while out of focus in others. It doesn't look that nice once post processed.
On the other hand, a dynamic range stop is just notation for double the amount of light. If someone said "That film has about 9 stops of resolution" you would know that physically the brightest area on a picture would have 2^9 times as much photonic flux. Or you would be more camera focused, and know that the film would only record detail in the 4.5 stops above, and 4.5 stops below what ever you set the exposure for. An object 5 stops brighter than what you were focused at would be a washed out blur, and something 5 stops darker would be total shadow. A quick run through google suggests that Kodachrome, the legendary film, could record only about 8 stops dynamic range. The human eye can pick up something closer to 24 stops. GP's Red camera records 11.3 stops. Some people will claim that a digital camera gets as many stops as bytes, but that is only with the analog to digital conversion is logarithmic, and so is the display it is shown on. Mine runs about 7 stops, depending on other settings.
So, what's that got to do with this camera? I suspect what the article meant to say is that the camera captures 20 stops of data at 30fps. Better than the Red, better than almost any film in existence. It is doing the same thing in a single shot that other cameras do in several. All that will mean is less blur in HDR video, since subjects won't move irregularly between exposures. One would still have to tone-map the output down to a range that it can be displayed for printing, projection, or dvd.
Give it a few years. Someone will post a "Opps, sorry I didn't catch you yesterday. Happy Belated Birthday." One of your children's friends will mention their school by name. It doesn't take a genius to know you have a smartphone when/if you post from it and it signs all the posts. Someone else posts a picture from your kids birthday party, and leaves it geotagged. It doesn't take you screwing up at all for those details to get out there.
The question becomes, is it even possible to control all of this information. If it isn't possible at all, do we just accept that or do we attempt to throw off the data mining techniques with stealth and tom-foolery.
You could say the same thing about a programing language. "Either by 18, they know a programing language or they shouldn't be a CS major." The problem is, they may think they know a programing language, which as a CS student was something I saw cause a good many students to fail and leave for an IT major. Maybe their family couldn't afford a computer for them to reformat constantly, maybe no one around to direct them to a distro that was usable. They are not going to college to get a sheet of paper that says what they already know; at least I hope they aren't.
My advice, don't teach it freshman year, especially not first semester. Stick them in a Intro to Comp Sci course, something that talks about what computers are, what an OS does, some basics of how binary operations work. Nothing deep, no need to go beyond if->then truth tables, save that for discrete math. Introduce the idea that an os is just an os, and gui is just gui. Show them the computer lab, give them some basic tasks to do on all the different OSes and leave it at that. Make the course worth a fraction the credits of a normal course; something they can take while they get all the required language classes out of the way. Second or third term, after the C/Java/whatever course has gotten rid of the Visual Basic programmers, then you can drop them into a Linux heavy course. Teach sed and awk and regex, right off the bat; that might take a whole semester if you want them to really memorize it. Teach them how to use gdb, valgrind, or similar tools for the languages your school uses. If the university won't help you make Linux compatibility part of the student's computer requirements, teach the students how to use a virtual machine.
Yes, I said Linux compatibility. I know there are drivers for just about every piece of hardware, but most of them suck. If the school sets a guideline for student's computers, say "minimum X cores running at Y Ghz and Z gigs of ram," they can also say "and a video card with a manufacturer supported Linux driver."
Whomever the OP wishes. He or she is free to invest as much or little of his or her own time into whinging about it, or to accept bids to have it fixed.
Something that is not in the visible spectrum, what we call colors. X-rays could not be said to have a color in common parlance, though perhaps some people use color to distinguish between different frequencies of them. Never heard of blue or red x-rays myself. Guess this is what I get for trying to simplify the explanation of film technology, huh?
the chemistry is standard C41 colour negative (which realistically it has to be - nobody is going to do R&D on an entirely new film process at this point, and finding decent local processing is already hard enough):
And, really, C41 isn't have toxic or hard to handle. You process it at a set temperature, because chemical reactions change speeds with temperature. Except for the silver that you wash out of the film with the fixer, everything is about the same as household bleach and goes down the drain. My city even says that for a few rolls of home developed film, the used fixer can go down the drain as well; other places want you to collect it and offer cheap disposal when you get a gallon or 5 full. Don't even need a well ventilated room if it is warm outside, once you load the film in the dark just go out and do your chemical juggling.
Well, you might be able to find a spectrum of light that is able to differentiate between silver halide crystals that have been exposed to light, and the ones that haven't. If you do, and if you can fire that at the film without creating new crystals, you would get a simple black and white picture. In color film there are multiple layers. Only three of them are silver halide, the stuff that stores the image. The rest are dye layers*, so that as light shines through the slide or negative, it passes through an image layer, then a color layer, then an image layer, and so on. Since your light is going to have to be colorless, since it can't affect the silver halide crystals, it probably won't interact with the dye layer and so you would not be able to separate the colors.
In kodachrome, the undeveloped film doesn't have color in the dye layers when it starts. Those colors are added in when the film is developed, and is part of the reason it is harder to process that other slide film. So, in 50 years, if you have some exposed(in a camera when a picture is taken) but undeveloped(not chemically treated) film, chances are you would still need to develop it before it could be scanned and digitized.
Also of note, silver halides are sensitive to lots of the light spectrum. The same silver halides that are in consumer film are the same silvers that are in x-ray film, and infrared as well. It is the layers at the front of the film that block parts of the light spectrum, say blocking infrared for consumer film, or blocking visible light from an x-ray slide. In 50 years, maybe you or I or someone else will have found something in a wavelength that silver halide doesn't respond to. I just wouldn't count on it.
K-14 process film has to be re-exposed to light two or three times, each to very specific colors else you get some artifacts; if I read the process correctly. E-6 film, the newer slide stuff, can be re-exposed, but doesn't need to be. For the most part, it is the same process as black and white or color: Load the film in a tank in the dark, *pour chemicals into the tank, wait proscribed amount of time and agitate as directed, dump chemicals from tank, repeat from * appropriate number of times. And those chemicals are, mostly, not overly toxic. I did D-76 process film with a closet, a small fan, and no gloves in highschool; now I would use a better fan and some thin gloves. My understanding is that for K-14, one would want some heavier gloves and a mask as there were some strong cyano compounds used; but I can't find an MSDS to back that up.
If you don't want to buy a pack or plugin to do it for you, you can read an essay online titled "Simulating Film Effects with Curves". I would link, but/.'s ui won't let me paste a link today. Google has the essay as the first result if you search for the title. And if you don't want to recreate the curves for yourself, I think there are photoshop and gimp curve files available in the article.
Those aren't magic pennies just appearing in accounts, like the movie plots. The person buying gas is paying the same amount that the machine is collecting. Yes, it's a fractional cent and it makes you think you are spending less. That's all it is. What happens if you allow infinite decimal places for money? You would save 1 cent for every ten gallons, just like you do now, only you could purchase them a gallon at a time?
When you have a bank system that can allow infinitely precise numbers for billions of transactions, you go ahead and pitch that. I will just keep giggling at the thought of charging a third of a cent in your perfect world. Or charging 0.1 cent in any system that uses IEEE floating point pennies.
Who pockets the fractions? So the bank tells you that you get 4.0391759% interest, there is no magical fractions of a penny being made. They round off the number, and pay you from the amount of rounded off payments they get from someone else. All of the money they collect is rounded off from some fraction, but there is no fractional cent being created from thin air.
I know the whole "magic money" thing made for a great plot device in some amusing movies, but can anyone show how it would work? Show your work, double entry book-keeping records for extra credit.
Since it looks like it is aimed more squarely at the embedded device market, as a way to provide a full desktop on your phone, I think they are a little less worried about the ATI/Nvidia/Intel binary drivers. I suspect they are more concerned about companies like PowerVR and everyone who uses their designs.
People griped about moving from X11 to X.org, they will whine and moan about this too. It's only taken X.org 6 years to go from "that thin fast X11 replacement" to "too bloated for new computers", that is slightly impressive.
</sarcasm> It will be a good thing to have a separate thin X server for netbooks and phone-like devices. Leave all the super fancy graphics available on the bigger graphics cards, and pare down what is overkill on palm sized screens with tighter power requirements.
Slashdot Mirror
I first read the headline as 54.3 million and thought 'now that is a fine.' But just 4.3? I tried looking up this company and could find nothing about their revenue, prices, pay for doctors, anything. Is this a small set of clinics that doesn't give their CEO a million in expense accounts, or is it the government forgetting that companies really do compare the cost of a fine versus the cost of complying?
We should have all learned of Sony's plan after the PS3. Sure, this phone runs android right now. They may even release it with android in the furture. But as soon as they figure out that people have android apps that Sony doesn't control, poof, and away it goes. At that point, we will be lucky if it still functions as a phone. Sony might try telling us that we only bought a piece of plastic, and they made no claim to it being either a phone or a gaming system, and to feel lucky that we get to keep the chunk of plastic we bought.
But don't think of hacking that now useless piece of plastic!
So why aren't we requiring the providers to at least make available what their uptime and average data rate per customer is? They know this number, they know how much data they can move in any area. Yet they protect this information like it is a trade secret, that the average user could not possibly understand that they are offering 20MBps to the entire county while only having 200MBps backbone, and have only had an uptime over the past year of 98%.
To the GP's auto analogy, if I went to a car dealership and they offered to sell me a car that got an average of 100 mpg, could do 150mph, and only cost ten grand, I would expect those details to be explained somewhere. You know, that the car could only get that 100 mpg if you drove on a 100 mile long 10% downgrade , and that 150mph was it's airspeed in a hurricane. I would not expect them to be able to market a car as such, while knowing full and well that it was a best case only situations.
If you want to have Virginia in that list, can we adjust for what is available in NOVA and the capitol area, versus what is available in western and south-west? I know comcast will claim to provide a 25meg line, but there is no way they are getting it over 50 year old copper. And that is only in the 3 sq miles per county that they service just to get the government subsidy.
That a security leak is usually a person who thinks that the information they have is being misused, or that the public is being mislead, and is more likely to not see things the same way the average person does. Anon, having just taken on the FBI, a record of speaking out against CoS, and an aura of anarchy makes them a visible place to leak information. Remember, a security leak wants the information they have to be seen and Anon offers a very tempting public face; even if that face is just a mask.
I seriously doubt they'll be able to modify it in any meaningful way. The thing seems to have been designed specifically to hit Siemens centrifuges, which would imply that the creators had some very, very good knowledge of the software used in those centrifuges. I doubt there are too many Anons out there with enough knowledge of how natural gas systems or other dedicated industrial hardware works to do much with Stuxnet.
I would not be so certain of that. It doesn't require that the person working on the devices decides to write a virus for them; consider the extended family. Someone comes along and grabs a few of the specialist's books, maybe reference manuals, and passes those to another activist with a bit of knowledge. Suddenly, the activist has the insider knowledge necessary to target those specific plants. One would hope that a specialist worker in a nuke or gas plant would keep a tighter rein on their plant documentation, but family happens.
Libel/slander you have to both prove to be false, and prove that the person making the statement knew it to be false. Something along the lines of defamation per se, infringement on right of publicity, those you just have to prove that it actually occurred (and live in a country/state where there are laws concerning them).
Yes, we are sequestering it. We are storing it so efficiently that there is no chance of it or any other material used in these circuits ever leaching back into the environment in a landfill. It is such a closed system that in a millennium there will be no molybdenum left, it will all have leaked out into these chips. And even if could seep out of these chips, everyone uses their electronics for 100 years or more, none of them are ever disposed of.
Please, for the love of everything you hold holy, don't give green geeks a bad name. Yes, this mineral is very useful for hydroponics as has been pointed out, but that use can exist side-by-side with it's use in electronics. Hell, if it's use in electronics makes them potentially more recyclable, that would be a great improvement. But that idea that we are going to destroy this element, by moving it from one place to another inside a closed system, is absurd.
I will admit ignorance, is there something about these moly circuits that actually does sequester it in a form that plant-life is proven to be unable to use? Something about applying the common mineral form of it over another common mineral will make it as toxic as polonium? Yes, the epoxy shells that ICs are housed in is a problem, but that's something that demands it's own rational arguments and solutions. Does mixing it onto silicon make it impossible to retrieve later? Is all of this some how infinitely more disastrous than it's use as a lubricant?
I don't understand the desire to leave shows like this untouched. It is like some collecting impulse where a fan can not bear the actors coming back for another season because it might ruin the value of what they have already. The actors get paid, we get a new season of a show we like/love/hate. Everybody wins in this regard. Except the smeg heads who hate Red Dwarf.
Which brings me to the real point of this insanity surrounding "HDR".
Q: Why do we actually need HDR?
You could just the same answer that it is because displays suck, and can not reproduce the range between dark and light that exist in the real world. Each weak spot must be conquered at a time. Really, how much marketing has gone into convincing people that HD is the furture, when we are stuck with displays that still use the sRGB color space. Yeah, it will waste bit space for imaginary colors, but getting a display that can show saturated greens and yellows would be great.
The other point to the hyper-saturated HDR images that are popular right now is just artistic style. Neo-impressionism.
You assume that data mining is a targeted process. It can be, don't get me wrong; one could pick a target and follow breadcrumbs to dig up lots of information. Usually, though, marketing agencies are not after the rich and powerful, they are after information about you and me. That information is not picked over, analyzed piece by piece for some glimmer of data that might be overlooked. It is simply stored, aggregated in a massive database of potential customers. However, you are optimistic to think that that deleted tag was ever deleted. That link, between your kids and you, their name, is now a known fact in that database; not a speculation. Any company that copied that data between when the tag was visible and when you had them delete it now owns a privileged fact about you. Alone, that probably is worthless; you could make that connection a hundred other ways and as you said you probably aren't important enough. But a database of thousands and millions of unique facts becomes worth something to another advertising or marketing company. No one is going to delete that potential gold mine. And at the moment, it isn't worth their time to process that data down to know everything about your life. But, at the current rate, it will be.
This entire process is a problem that will affect everyone at some point. Like junk mail and spam, personalized marketing will become cheaper than the alternative. And that data is already out there.
The summary is just plain wrong, and the article may be as well. First, there seems to be some massive confusion between f-stops and dynamic range 'stops'. An f-stop is your aperture setting, and is part of the control that determines how much light gets into the camera. If I go out and desire to take an HDR picture of something, the f-stop is the last control I will use in setting each exposure. The f-stop has the side effect of changing the depth of focus, thats covered in photography 101. If you change that in a set of pictures, some things will be in focus in one frame, while out of focus in others. It doesn't look that nice once post processed.
On the other hand, a dynamic range stop is just notation for double the amount of light. If someone said "That film has about 9 stops of resolution" you would know that physically the brightest area on a picture would have 2^9 times as much photonic flux. Or you would be more camera focused, and know that the film would only record detail in the 4.5 stops above, and 4.5 stops below what ever you set the exposure for. An object 5 stops brighter than what you were focused at would be a washed out blur, and something 5 stops darker would be total shadow. A quick run through google suggests that Kodachrome, the legendary film, could record only about 8 stops dynamic range. The human eye can pick up something closer to 24 stops. GP's Red camera records 11.3 stops. Some people will claim that a digital camera gets as many stops as bytes, but that is only with the analog to digital conversion is logarithmic, and so is the display it is shown on. Mine runs about 7 stops, depending on other settings.
So, what's that got to do with this camera? I suspect what the article meant to say is that the camera captures 20 stops of data at 30fps. Better than the Red, better than almost any film in existence. It is doing the same thing in a single shot that other cameras do in several. All that will mean is less blur in HDR video, since subjects won't move irregularly between exposures. One would still have to tone-map the output down to a range that it can be displayed for printing, projection, or dvd.
Are your friends as careful?
Give it a few years. Someone will post a "Opps, sorry I didn't catch you yesterday. Happy Belated Birthday." One of your children's friends will mention their school by name. It doesn't take a genius to know you have a smartphone when/if you post from it and it signs all the posts. Someone else posts a picture from your kids birthday party, and leaves it geotagged. It doesn't take you screwing up at all for those details to get out there.
The question becomes, is it even possible to control all of this information. If it isn't possible at all, do we just accept that or do we attempt to throw off the data mining techniques with stealth and tom-foolery.
You could say the same thing about a programing language. "Either by 18, they know a programing language or they shouldn't be a CS major." The problem is, they may think they know a programing language, which as a CS student was something I saw cause a good many students to fail and leave for an IT major. Maybe their family couldn't afford a computer for them to reformat constantly, maybe no one around to direct them to a distro that was usable. They are not going to college to get a sheet of paper that says what they already know; at least I hope they aren't.
My advice, don't teach it freshman year, especially not first semester. Stick them in a Intro to Comp Sci course, something that talks about what computers are, what an OS does, some basics of how binary operations work. Nothing deep, no need to go beyond if->then truth tables, save that for discrete math. Introduce the idea that an os is just an os, and gui is just gui. Show them the computer lab, give them some basic tasks to do on all the different OSes and leave it at that. Make the course worth a fraction the credits of a normal course; something they can take while they get all the required language classes out of the way. Second or third term, after the C/Java/whatever course has gotten rid of the Visual Basic programmers, then you can drop them into a Linux heavy course. Teach sed and awk and regex, right off the bat; that might take a whole semester if you want them to really memorize it. Teach them how to use gdb, valgrind, or similar tools for the languages your school uses. If the university won't help you make Linux compatibility part of the student's computer requirements, teach the students how to use a virtual machine.
Yes, I said Linux compatibility. I know there are drivers for just about every piece of hardware, but most of them suck. If the school sets a guideline for student's computers, say "minimum X cores running at Y Ghz and Z gigs of ram," they can also say "and a video card with a manufacturer supported Linux driver."
I happen to have paid for astrological readings many times.
I don't know what I find more troubling, that fact, or that you would have thought it wise to admit it here.
What is wrong with admiring a skilled cold read? Some people are damn good at it. And some times that outside observation can be very useful.
Whomever the OP wishes. He or she is free to invest as much or little of his or her own time into whinging about it, or to accept bids to have it fixed.
Something that is not in the visible spectrum, what we call colors. X-rays could not be said to have a color in common parlance, though perhaps some people use color to distinguish between different frequencies of them. Never heard of blue or red x-rays myself. Guess this is what I get for trying to simplify the explanation of film technology, huh?
the chemistry is standard C41 colour negative (which realistically it has to be - nobody is going to do R&D on an entirely new film process at this point, and finding decent local processing is already hard enough):
And, really, C41 isn't have toxic or hard to handle. You process it at a set temperature, because chemical reactions change speeds with temperature. Except for the silver that you wash out of the film with the fixer, everything is about the same as household bleach and goes down the drain. My city even says that for a few rolls of home developed film, the used fixer can go down the drain as well; other places want you to collect it and offer cheap disposal when you get a gallon or 5 full. Don't even need a well ventilated room if it is warm outside, once you load the film in the dark just go out and do your chemical juggling.
Well, you might be able to find a spectrum of light that is able to differentiate between silver halide crystals that have been exposed to light, and the ones that haven't. If you do, and if you can fire that at the film without creating new crystals, you would get a simple black and white picture. In color film there are multiple layers. Only three of them are silver halide, the stuff that stores the image. The rest are dye layers*, so that as light shines through the slide or negative, it passes through an image layer, then a color layer, then an image layer, and so on. Since your light is going to have to be colorless, since it can't affect the silver halide crystals, it probably won't interact with the dye layer and so you would not be able to separate the colors.
In kodachrome, the undeveloped film doesn't have color in the dye layers when it starts. Those colors are added in when the film is developed, and is part of the reason it is harder to process that other slide film. So, in 50 years, if you have some exposed(in a camera when a picture is taken) but undeveloped(not chemically treated) film, chances are you would still need to develop it before it could be scanned and digitized.
Also of note, silver halides are sensitive to lots of the light spectrum. The same silver halides that are in consumer film are the same silvers that are in x-ray film, and infrared as well. It is the layers at the front of the film that block parts of the light spectrum, say blocking infrared for consumer film, or blocking visible light from an x-ray slide. In 50 years, maybe you or I or someone else will have found something in a wavelength that silver halide doesn't respond to. I just wouldn't count on it.
K-14 process film has to be re-exposed to light two or three times, each to very specific colors else you get some artifacts; if I read the process correctly. E-6 film, the newer slide stuff, can be re-exposed, but doesn't need to be. For the most part, it is the same process as black and white or color: Load the film in a tank in the dark, *pour chemicals into the tank, wait proscribed amount of time and agitate as directed, dump chemicals from tank, repeat from * appropriate number of times. And those chemicals are, mostly, not overly toxic. I did D-76 process film with a closet, a small fan, and no gloves in highschool; now I would use a better fan and some thin gloves. My understanding is that for K-14, one would want some heavier gloves and a mask as there were some strong cyano compounds used; but I can't find an MSDS to back that up.
If you don't want to buy a pack or plugin to do it for you, you can read an essay online titled "Simulating Film Effects with Curves". I would link, but /.'s ui won't let me paste a link today. Google has the essay as the first result if you search for the title. And if you don't want to recreate the curves for yourself, I think there are photoshop and gimp curve files available in the article.
Those aren't magic pennies just appearing in accounts, like the movie plots. The person buying gas is paying the same amount that the machine is collecting. Yes, it's a fractional cent and it makes you think you are spending less. That's all it is. What happens if you allow infinite decimal places for money? You would save 1 cent for every ten gallons, just like you do now, only you could purchase them a gallon at a time?
When you have a bank system that can allow infinitely precise numbers for billions of transactions, you go ahead and pitch that. I will just keep giggling at the thought of charging a third of a cent in your perfect world. Or charging 0.1 cent in any system that uses IEEE floating point pennies.
Who pockets the fractions? So the bank tells you that you get 4.0391759% interest, there is no magical fractions of a penny being made. They round off the number, and pay you from the amount of rounded off payments they get from someone else. All of the money they collect is rounded off from some fraction, but there is no fractional cent being created from thin air.
I know the whole "magic money" thing made for a great plot device in some amusing movies, but can anyone show how it would work? Show your work, double entry book-keeping records for extra credit.
Since it looks like it is aimed more squarely at the embedded device market, as a way to provide a full desktop on your phone, I think they are a little less worried about the ATI/Nvidia/Intel binary drivers. I suspect they are more concerned about companies like PowerVR and everyone who uses their designs.
People griped about moving from X11 to X.org, they will whine and moan about this too. It's only taken X.org 6 years to go from "that thin fast X11 replacement" to "too bloated for new computers", that is slightly impressive.
</sarcasm> It will be a good thing to have a separate thin X server for netbooks and phone-like devices. Leave all the super fancy graphics available on the bigger graphics cards, and pare down what is overkill on palm sized screens with tighter power requirements.