I've taken digital photos at 1/250, you need a lot of light for the exposure to be right if you want any depth of field. Movies used slower shutter speeds (in part to avoid judder at 24FPS) and still needed obscene amounts of hot lights.

And the reason they went with 24FPS is because film was expensive and 24FPS was about as slow as they could use and it still being tolerable. With digital now, that expense of the film does not matter anymore.

Do you realize how much more light you would need at 240FPS vs. 24, 25, 50, 38, or even 60FPS? Would you like any usable focal length?

Pin compatible? Ha, it was a BGA package.

I tried once too, but before that I called the officer that had given me the ticket to let him know I was going to. After I spoke a bit he said that he was driving on a completely different road when he caught me speeding than he actually was, one near the subdivision I pulled-off into where traffic was calm and we would not block a lane. The reality was that he was pulling out of the road that the police station is next to, I saw him the entire time. I told him that he was not, he said, "Who is the judge going to believe?" My math all hinged on his radar detector being wrong on account of his turning not stationary or coming behind or oncoming when I went by. So I just paid.

To be fair by his only drawing one pixel at a time reference eulernet might be referring to using only int 10h. There was no way to scroll with only that. It was pretty limited, but the only really documented way from IBM for a long time.

Maybe you could answer the question I posed here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2711231&cid=39276341

Basically I am wondering about the change in angle of the x-rays that are not captured when others are waiting in line. Has the wavelength change made them non-ionizing? Are the angles such that they do not hit the people waiting in line at security? I have not seen this discussed anywhere, I wonder if there is some simple explanation to why it's not a concern.

Maybe someone can answer this for me. The back scatter machines work based on compton scattering. I know little about physics, but what I intuitively understand is that the photon comes along, knocks an electron away, and a photon goes off at a different angle. The whole electron knocking off bugs me since that means it's ionizing radiation. Also the wavelength changes of that back scattered x-ray, gets longer the bigger the angle of deflection. So there I was in the airport the first time after these things got introduced and knowing that little bit I did. I'm waiting in line and hundreds of the scans happened right in front of me from a handful of machines. Maybe I was at the front row nearest to the machine when forty scans happened from them. So wouldn't the back scattered x-rays hit me? Would it be very little? Would the ones that did be at a sufficient deflection angle that it was no longer ioniozing? (That bit I doubt, in the line I was with the machines all about there were all sorts of angles from many.) Anyone know any info about that where my concern about exposure waiting in line is addressed? Everything I have read addresses it from the point of view that while you are being scanned once you get little exposure only.

Not really as bad as you think. All it does is show frame n in one eye and frame n + 1 in the other, stretched (and cropped to preserve aspect ratio) a bit to exaggerate the depth. So things that do not move, they are assumed to be in the background, moving things seem to be closer. It's not as bad as you say, no resetting one key frames for example, but yes the effect is strange, often not right, as well as neat.

There are many reasons that the CAFE regulations are suboptimal but yours is not one of them. CAFE calculates the harmonic mean, ie the inverse, so it effectively is calculating the mean if every car was driven the same distance, not used the same amount of fuel, so just like thinking in the European manner unlike our MPG. Real reasons that CAFE is suboptimal is that there is still a domestic and other average (for cars), the car vs truck limits, the fleet penalty is very low, the arbitrary E85 benefit, the new 'footprint' requirements that will be the new loophole to allowing manufactures continue selling large fuel efficient but very profitable vehicles, and so on (there is more).

It would work, one script would then check to see if the keys were one of year, month, or day. Another script would verify that it only got zip, city, or state. Those keys that it cared about, it could put those values into a hash table if it wanted, or not if it just used them right then and there. The problem is that framework like plone or rack or tomcat or whatever it is that calls your script doesn't know what are the variables that you will need. It puts them all in a hash. Oh sure that use an array to pass them all is linear, but the current attack is quadratic. First you add the first, you get an empty bucket list. Now you add the second, have to look at the first one... Now you add n, first look through the previous n - 1. See?

Kippo will not work for anyone but the kiddies. Did you change the default root passwords even? Those two are a real tip-off to a honeypot. Also there are hardly any commands, ifconfig never changes, and in this case /etc/issue says Debian and these people were after CentOS. If you had been hacked, you would have had the vulnerable sshd and no Kippo logs would have been the least of your worries.

HA! Sorry I replied to the wrong person, it was the "Prince of Persia" sets.

Sorry it was "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time." After my sons got the set with ostriches they pleaded with me to watch the film. The movie and video game released at the same time were not age appropriate for them and that set made them want to watch the film very badly which I guess was the point for the deal.

Cool Lego protected it's brand so much they never released a line of sets based on a movie based on a game that was completely inappropriate for children 7-10 years old.