Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: -- Is Safe For Work (Score 1) 273

by 14cfr01 (#17400858) Attached to: The NSFW HTML Attribute

I agree with you, that this is great for writers & readers of sites that already mark their content as not safe for work.

However, I haven't seen anyone point out this problem, which lends itself to other complaints slashdotters have had: Currently, some page writers put "NSFW" next to objectionable links. If NSFW moves to an HTML relationship value, then you won't have a visual cue that the author marks stuff as NSFW or not.

Even if the browser alerts you when you mouse-over an objectionable link, when you mouse-over a non-NSFW link, you won't see a cue to tell you if it's safe or if the author failed to mark it as NSFW. If you're at work and worried about these things, then you'll have to do the same as you do now: judge based on the rep of the site and such, and assume that any unmarked link might lead to racy content.

If you're forced to make that assumption, perhaps you should make it official. Make an HTML relationship value "ISFW" (Is Safe For Work). Then readers can assume that unmarked links are dangerous, that marked links are safe according to the author. The browser can report that the link is marked safe (say, through the pointer icon or through a tooltip).

Just a proposal, but I think it's important to point out that an absence of NSFW tags doesn't tell you if they've been used or not. You lose the visual info that you occasionally get now.

User Journal

Journal: Launch

Journal by 14cfr01

Please follow these steps.

  1. Prop geek upright, facing the wind.
  2. Give him enough line to hang himself.
  3. Make certain something blows. M$ Word is a good resource for hot air and getting a rise out of the geek.
  4. Keep line taught, then pull.
  5. Geek will rise. Keep him tied to ground, else he will be LOST.

Comment: Re:Broken cameras - digital cameras (Score 1) 183

by chrooke (#4671508) Attached to: Kite Aerial Photography
I've been doing KAP for about 1.5 years using two different cameras, and I've never broken one. One of the main reasons is that I get a friend or two to help. The couple of times I've come close to damaging a camera happened in gusty wind when raising or lowering the rig, so that it was close to the ground. Having an assistant to either hold the kite or go grab the rig just as it gets within reach avoids problems like this. It also helps to make sure you use decent line that isn't likely to break on you!

Until recently people haven't tended to use digital cameras for KAP, partly because of price and partly because of shutter speed. Even with suspension rigs cameras do tend to bounce around a bit. I have seen a few recent articles with digital being used. The "cheap-ass" digital cameras are the one's least likely to be suited to KAP, unfortunately. I have a couple, and they both have fairly low resolution and require a lot of light.

As to flying height, the low lengths of stunt kites make for fairly boring shots, at least when you take a whole role of them. Higher shots are good, but at some point you have a hard time seeing the camera!

Some of my pics. More to come in about a week.

SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out! -- Ken Thompson

Working...