Google pioneered the most important advancement in the history of internet search engines: A clean search page.
Visit Google.com and you get a large well centered box into which you can type your search criteria. A fairly small Google logo, a handful of text only links to other parts of the site. No news snippets, no ads, no headlines from around the world. I don't have to sort out which box searches the internet and which is the stock quote lookup. I do not have to sort through a long gaphical menu to find which brightly colored artist rendering of a smiling something or other represents the link to the smiling "My Internet" search page.
In other words, they resisted turning themselves into another shitheel portal site when conventional wisdom said everything had to be a shitheel portal site.
Google.com is the 1911A1 of search engines. It is plain and simple and does exactly what it is supposed to do.
Those are the guys from Accurate Reloading. Unfortunate that they are mostly known for a video where they are screwing around, they have actually done a tremendous amount of load development for safari caliber cartridges that no one else has.
Sniper Elite does it, and takes into account that your recent activity might prevent you from exercising proper breath control. It also does a passable job of simulating bullet drop, wind, and stance.
No, not solely. Their arrest without notice was what caused the violation.
As for the irrelevancy of my example, no again. Find yourself a big obtrusive white telephoto lens and try shooting some photos of the White House from across the street. Put a copy of the Koran in your bag before you go. Stop by Wal-Mart on your way and buy a few hundred pre-paid cell phones to leave in your trunk. Be as peaceful about the whole thing as you can.
Maybe we just disagree on the propensity of humans to be reasonable. Who knows how many anti-TSA messages have made it through the screening process without incident? Maybe a hundred, but the one that spawned the article to which we reply, if the whole truth were to be known, was probably a meeting of two unreasonable people. One guy hoping to pick a fight and another hoping to quell one. Regardless, no matter how much we 'aspire', there will remain unreasonable people out there, which is why I say it isn't possible to pass through life without meeting them.
It is the position of the Federal government that virtually every physical item you might buy is part of interstate commerce.
The airplane, because it was produced in one state and sold in another, can be regulated, from now until it cases to exist. The bag on which he wrote his message and the marker he used to write it can be regulated as well.
And yes, a cop arresting you without cause does equal the government...violating your rights
No it does not. There is legal redress for arrest without cause but I defy you to show me that a US court found that arrest without cause (solely) was a violation of a civil right.
While it is nice to argue on the internet about what is what, try putting this into practice. Go to some public place where you aren't wanted and demand to be allowed to speak. The cops will come. Tell them about your rights and how you just want the opportunity to exercise them. They will insist that you come with them so they can sort the matter out. The situation will escalate until you are 'causing a disturbance' and they will decide to physically remove you from the scene. You'll resist. You will now have assualted an officer, which is an actual offense foer which you can actually be arrested.
Now post in your blog that you were arrested for trying to speak your mind in a public place.
Nowhere do I make the case that the situation in the US is any more acceptable than the one in Sudan, but I sometime forget that I am posting on the literal interpretation capital of the internet and that each post I write must certainly represent the entirety of my thoughts on the subject and that if I fail to point out that neither the situation in the US nor the one in the Sudan is optimal I must certainly be supportive of one or the other. My actual feelings, since they must be explained in detail lest everyone assume that I pray nightly we are all mired in whatever totalitarian fantasy world is currently popular, is that I would really enjoy it if everyone were reasonable about everything and didn't assume that if a person is doing something out of the ordinary they are not automatically suspicious.
You should be aware that the police do not actually need grounds to arrest someone. If you do something that upsets them they will arrest you and make up grounds for having done it later.
As a professional photographer who spends quite a bit of time out on the street I've been bothered more times than I can count by security guards and cops and even civilians. Most of them seem to have a strong desire to be heroes, to be the person who stops the next big terror attack and gets the name and face in the USA Today and gets to make a few rounds on the talk show circuit and meet Oprah.
Even with these people the situation is manageable. Refrain from throwing a fit and sooner or later someone with some sense will show up and I get to go on my way. Start foaming at the mouth and even when the sensible people show up they'll think that there must be something to this whole deal since this guy is foaming at the mouth and has pictures of our water tower on his camera and is using words like 'Hasselblad'. I've actually made it all the way into a holding cell before enough common sense arrived to decode that I wasn't a terrorist but, just like my business card claims, I am a professional photographer.
Regardless, at no time did I feel like my 'rights' were being violated. I have never been under the impression that any court ruling on the First Amendment protects me from some dim witted tourist calling the police, who arrive on the scene fresh from having watched a sitcom about police who catch terrorists. I don't like it much, but I also understand that some misguided cop being an idiot does not represent 'the government violating my rights'.
If you want real rights violations go try to take photos in Sudan. The people who show up there aren't looking for reasonable explanations or business cards or anything of the sort. I'll take every idiot security guard you can assemble over a pickup truck full of doped up AK strapped warlord minions any day of the week.
I usually carry on all my camera gear when flying inside the US, but I do check some of it when flying internationally.
The only time I had anything snatched was from a bag checked planeside when it was judged too big to go overhead on an Embraer. Someone on one end or the other opened my bag and snatched a Fuji S5200 P&S, leaving behind 2 Canon L lenses and a Leica Summilux. I was actually relieved.
The problem with all of you fuel tax proponents is that you don't seem to recognize that virtually all of the goods (and large chunk of the services) people consume have crude oil figured in to their costs somewhere along the line.
You increase gasoline taxes at the pump some fantastic amount and you might get enough attention to reduce consumption, but you also raise the price of a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread.
Because the 'burden' is nearly impossible to quantify.
If I were to argue the other side of this I'd tell you that crude oil and the products derived from it do far more to benefit humanity than harm it. I'd tell you that a big reason why any infrastructure to tax is because oil helped build it, fund it, and sustain it.
While it would require more than 3 angles I can see this technology having an application in product modeling displays.
There are a number of ways to build a 360 view of a product out of still photos, but they are all intended to be viewed by one person sitting in front of a screen. With more viewing angles (and monitors) a similar display could be made that in intended for multiple viewers who are simply walking around.
I'm not sure what the application for that might be, but I'm just the photographer.
Close ups, or super close ups, are matters of opinion. Only when a photo is made with 1:1 magnification do you have any sort of strict definition, and then you have a Macro.
Photos taken through a microscope are properly called photomicrographs and they can have all sorts of different magnifications.
I don't know if this furthers anyone's understanding of the subject matter but I though I would point it out.
The two of you can't even agree on the meaning of a one sentence Slashdot post, yet you still believe that there is some way for people to come to an agreement about whether Global Warming is fact or fiction?
How else can it be funded? In order to fund anything you have to come up with some cash, so you can either sell someone something, like a business, or force them to give it to you at gunpoint, like a government. So either a business is trying to further its own agenda by funding a report that helps them sell more stuff, or some particular political group in control of a government is doing it to help themselves stay in power.
If you were some well known public personality you could go on a fundraising tear for your favorite independent organization that funds science, but you'd be doing that fundraising to push your own particular agenda and the organization the money goes toward isn't going to publish anything that jeapordizes their continued existence or mission statement or whatever, sound science or not.
One thing I don't believe any other government, or people, have done throughout history is to insist other governments should be more like their own and encouraging change with a very large military
That is because through most of history the country with the larger military just killed everyone else instead of insisting they do their bidding. Wars are fought over all sorts of things, salt, which god to worship, women supposedly, strong desire to cleanse the earth of people different from the people with the larger military.
You people really should be happy we haven't killed you yet.
You of course are aware that you can replace every reference to the US in your post with the name of any other country on earth at any time in recorded history and it would all apply.
Who decides whether or not a patent is frivolous? If it is the same people who approved it in the first place I see a problem looming out there...
If not, why don't we fire all the current patent reviewers and replace them with the people we hire to detect frivolousness? Then retroactively review all patents ever granted to specifically check for frivolousness that we previously could not detect due to our patent reviewers inattention to frivolousness, thus letting frivolous patents through and getting us into this mess in the first place. If our new frivolousness inspectors detect any frivolousness in any particular patent they send a letter to the frivolous patent holder notifying them of the detected frivolousness and of the impending prison sentence you proposed for just such frivolous screwing around with the patent process.
Packaged with the frivolousness notification letter would be, like a firearm turn in, two tickets to a local sporting event or the like, along with a strict admonition to engage in no more frivolous patent activity because we no longer tolerate it and, honestly, are quite few up with it.
But then again, maybe being sent to prison because a government agency granted your request for something is a stupid idea.
It is great to know this is being documented. I went to high school with two, maybe three other people who used a BBS. All the way through getting a BS in CS I encountered only a handful more.
I try to explain how they worked to people today and they can't quite seem to grasp why anyone would bother, but back then it was bleeding edge stuff.
The photosites on a digital camera sensor can be smaller than the grain in film, so the resolution advantage is actually digital's. At 35mm formats and smaller I have seen many digital prints that survived enlarging better than film.
Of course film offers vastly more tonal range than digital which is a massive advantage. This is particularly obvious with black and white.
Slashdot Mirror
Google pioneered the most important advancement in the history of internet search engines: A clean search page.
Visit Google.com and you get a large well centered box into which you can type your search criteria. A fairly small Google logo, a handful of text only links to other parts of the site. No news snippets, no ads, no headlines from around the world. I don't have to sort out which box searches the internet and which is the stock quote lookup. I do not have to sort through a long gaphical menu to find which brightly colored artist rendering of a smiling something or other represents the link to the smiling "My Internet" search page.
In other words, they resisted turning themselves into another shitheel portal site when conventional wisdom said everything had to be a shitheel portal site.
Google.com is the 1911A1 of search engines. It is plain and simple and does exactly what it is supposed to do.
Those are the guys from Accurate Reloading. Unfortunate that they are mostly known for a video where they are screwing around, they have actually done a tremendous amount of load development for safari caliber cartridges that no one else has.
Sniper Elite does it, and takes into account that your recent activity might prevent you from exercising proper breath control. It also does a passable job of simulating bullet drop, wind, and stance.
Well ok then, certainly a noble objective that I hope can actually be accomplished.
Hoplophobia?
I never realized it before, but maybe those people burning To Kill a Mockingbird were just trying to save mockingbirds.
Do you honestly think Democrats are significantly different from Republicans in their desire to subjugate people to further their own interests?
Do they not have their own boogeymen to trot out?
If I had some kind of electronic medal I could pin on your post, I would pin that electronic medal directly to the chest of your post.
No, not solely. Their arrest without notice was what caused the violation.
As for the irrelevancy of my example, no again. Find yourself a big obtrusive white telephoto lens and try shooting some photos of the White House from across the street. Put a copy of the Koran in your bag before you go. Stop by Wal-Mart on your way and buy a few hundred pre-paid cell phones to leave in your trunk. Be as peaceful about the whole thing as you can.
Maybe we just disagree on the propensity of humans to be reasonable. Who knows how many anti-TSA messages have made it through the screening process without incident? Maybe a hundred, but the one that spawned the article to which we reply, if the whole truth were to be known, was probably a meeting of two unreasonable people. One guy hoping to pick a fight and another hoping to quell one. Regardless, no matter how much we 'aspire', there will remain unreasonable people out there, which is why I say it isn't possible to pass through life without meeting them.
It is the position of the Federal government that virtually every physical item you might buy is part of interstate commerce.
The airplane, because it was produced in one state and sold in another, can be regulated, from now until it cases to exist. The bag on which he wrote his message and the marker he used to write it can be regulated as well.
While it is nice to argue on the internet about what is what, try putting this into practice. Go to some public place where you aren't wanted and demand to be allowed to speak. The cops will come. Tell them about your rights and how you just want the opportunity to exercise them. They will insist that you come with them so they can sort the matter out. The situation will escalate until you are 'causing a disturbance' and they will decide to physically remove you from the scene. You'll resist. You will now have assualted an officer, which is an actual offense foer which you can actually be arrested.
Now post in your blog that you were arrested for trying to speak your mind in a public place.
Nowhere do I make the case that the situation in the US is any more acceptable than the one in Sudan, but I sometime forget that I am posting on the literal interpretation capital of the internet and that each post I write must certainly represent the entirety of my thoughts on the subject and that if I fail to point out that neither the situation in the US nor the one in the Sudan is optimal I must certainly be supportive of one or the other. My actual feelings, since they must be explained in detail lest everyone assume that I pray nightly we are all mired in whatever totalitarian fantasy world is currently popular, is that I would really enjoy it if everyone were reasonable about everything and didn't assume that if a person is doing something out of the ordinary they are not automatically suspicious.
But of course I know that isn't possible.
You should be aware that the police do not actually need grounds to arrest someone. If you do something that upsets them they will arrest you and make up grounds for having done it later.
As a professional photographer who spends quite a bit of time out on the street I've been bothered more times than I can count by security guards and cops and even civilians. Most of them seem to have a strong desire to be heroes, to be the person who stops the next big terror attack and gets the name and face in the USA Today and gets to make a few rounds on the talk show circuit and meet Oprah.
Even with these people the situation is manageable. Refrain from throwing a fit and sooner or later someone with some sense will show up and I get to go on my way. Start foaming at the mouth and even when the sensible people show up they'll think that there must be something to this whole deal since this guy is foaming at the mouth and has pictures of our water tower on his camera and is using words like 'Hasselblad'. I've actually made it all the way into a holding cell before enough common sense arrived to decode that I wasn't a terrorist but, just like my business card claims, I am a professional photographer.
Regardless, at no time did I feel like my 'rights' were being violated. I have never been under the impression that any court ruling on the First Amendment protects me from some dim witted tourist calling the police, who arrive on the scene fresh from having watched a sitcom about police who catch terrorists. I don't like it much, but I also understand that some misguided cop being an idiot does not represent 'the government violating my rights'.
If you want real rights violations go try to take photos in Sudan. The people who show up there aren't looking for reasonable explanations or business cards or anything of the sort. I'll take every idiot security guard you can assemble over a pickup truck full of doped up AK strapped warlord minions any day of the week.
I usually carry on all my camera gear when flying inside the US, but I do check some of it when flying internationally.
The only time I had anything snatched was from a bag checked planeside when it was judged too big to go overhead on an Embraer. Someone on one end or the other opened my bag and snatched a Fuji S5200 P&S, leaving behind 2 Canon L lenses and a Leica Summilux. I was actually relieved.
Change 'conservatives' to 'politicians' and it would be.
The problem with all of you fuel tax proponents is that you don't seem to recognize that virtually all of the goods (and large chunk of the services) people consume have crude oil figured in to their costs somewhere along the line.
You increase gasoline taxes at the pump some fantastic amount and you might get enough attention to reduce consumption, but you also raise the price of a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread.
Because the 'burden' is nearly impossible to quantify.
If I were to argue the other side of this I'd tell you that crude oil and the products derived from it do far more to benefit humanity than harm it. I'd tell you that a big reason why any infrastructure to tax is because oil helped build it, fund it, and sustain it.
While it would require more than 3 angles I can see this technology having an application in product modeling displays.
There are a number of ways to build a 360 view of a product out of still photos, but they are all intended to be viewed by one person sitting in front of a screen. With more viewing angles (and monitors) a similar display could be made that in intended for multiple viewers who are simply walking around.
I'm not sure what the application for that might be, but I'm just the photographer.
Photos taken through a microscope are properly called photomicrographs and they can have all sorts of different magnifications.
I don't know if this furthers anyone's understanding of the subject matter but I though I would point it out.
The two of you can't even agree on the meaning of a one sentence Slashdot post, yet you still believe that there is some way for people to come to an agreement about whether Global Warming is fact or fiction?
How else can it be funded? In order to fund anything you have to come up with some cash, so you can either sell someone something, like a business, or force them to give it to you at gunpoint, like a government. So either a business is trying to further its own agenda by funding a report that helps them sell more stuff, or some particular political group in control of a government is doing it to help themselves stay in power.
If you were some well known public personality you could go on a fundraising tear for your favorite independent organization that funds science, but you'd be doing that fundraising to push your own particular agenda and the organization the money goes toward isn't going to publish anything that jeapordizes their continued existence or mission statement or whatever, sound science or not.
That is because through most of history the country with the larger military just killed everyone else instead of insisting they do their bidding. Wars are fought over all sorts of things, salt, which god to worship, women supposedly, strong desire to cleanse the earth of people different from the people with the larger military.
You people really should be happy we haven't killed you yet.
You of course are aware that you can replace every reference to the US in your post with the name of any other country on earth at any time in recorded history and it would all apply.
Who decides whether or not a patent is frivolous? If it is the same people who approved it in the first place I see a problem looming out there...
If not, why don't we fire all the current patent reviewers and replace them with the people we hire to detect frivolousness? Then retroactively review all patents ever granted to specifically check for frivolousness that we previously could not detect due to our patent reviewers inattention to frivolousness, thus letting frivolous patents through and getting us into this mess in the first place. If our new frivolousness inspectors detect any frivolousness in any particular patent they send a letter to the frivolous patent holder notifying them of the detected frivolousness and of the impending prison sentence you proposed for just such frivolous screwing around with the patent process.
Packaged with the frivolousness notification letter would be, like a firearm turn in, two tickets to a local sporting event or the like, along with a strict admonition to engage in no more frivolous patent activity because we no longer tolerate it and, honestly, are quite few up with it.
But then again, maybe being sent to prison because a government agency granted your request for something is a stupid idea.
It is great to know this is being documented. I went to high school with two, maybe three other people who used a BBS. All the way through getting a BS in CS I encountered only a handful more. I try to explain how they worked to people today and they can't quite seem to grasp why anyone would bother, but back then it was bleeding edge stuff.
Well no.
The photosites on a digital camera sensor can be smaller than the grain in film, so the resolution advantage is actually digital's. At 35mm formats and smaller I have seen many digital prints that survived enlarging better than film.
Of course film offers vastly more tonal range than digital which is a massive advantage. This is particularly obvious with black and white.