Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:pics? (Score 1) 475

by Paul server guy (#48198113) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Non-sexualized nudity with genitals not emphasized or even visible does not exactly qualify as porn. For instance, a painting of a mother bathing a small child is not kiddie porn.

Acttually some guy was busted for having pictures of his infant daughter bathing on his phone. (Was posted on /., but I'm too lazy to look it up.)

Comment: Re:OK Another one (Score 1) 89

by Paul server guy (#47791245) Attached to: Astronomers Find What May Be the Closest Exoplanet So Far

Unfortunately, people on this site that specializes in technology, don't actually believe that generational spaceships are possible. Either now or in all of our future timeframe.

I tried to make a similar argument about 2 months ago, and got nothing but grief for postulating such an idea.

Not true, there are many people who believe generational spaceships are possible, in the near term. The problem isn't the tech, the problem is the same for /all/ space projects.

Who's going to pay for it?

Comment: Re: Not Just Phones (Score 1) 281

Well, reason #1 would probably be a massive class action lawsuit that would destroy the coveted relationship that these companies have with their user base.

Class actions won't mean shit when there's enough {bribe} money on the other side. (Sony winning most of them for example. http://www.groklaw.net/article...)

And, based on consumer sales, not much of anythign will do anythign to these companies. All we can do as consumers is keep a ready supply of lube around.

Comment: Re:ping rate (Score 1) 131

If you ever have extended occupancy a computer geek, and 8 lbs of discretionary cargo, there will be a game server on the moon. Maybe a few more pounds if you need your own power source.

Http:\\OpenLuna.org will bring them there when they build their outpost. http:\\Keplershipyards.com is already planning on integrating "Recreational software" into the computers that they are building for OL to run the outpost and to integrate into the suit. Since the suits have VR and remote control consoles for the rovers, (using VR gloves and such) AR full-body COD anyone?

Comment: This piece misinterprets the research. (Score 1) 293

According to Stephen Braham This piece misinterprets the research. There's pretty much zero chance that Sag A* is a wormhole (and, given that I did my PhD on them, I'm biased to wanting wormholes)! The paper is about how you'd know if it was, and not on any evidence that Sag A* isn't a usual accretion-formed BH.

Comment: :### - Original poster, Let me clarify. (Score 1) 478

by Paul server guy (#46292529) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Anti-Camera Device For Use In a Small Bus?

OK, Obviously I wasn't clear enough...

And - I'm just as surprised as anyone that this hit the front page. (Seriously?! Wow - I've only done that once before! that's COOL!)

OK, No, the customers aren't being ass-hats, No, they aren't trying to sell pictures, no, there is not a sripper pole/orgy/druggie bus, and - No, they could care less about selfies, but, if you allow selfies, you have to accept all photos. There will be drinking. Lots of drinking...

What they don't want is pictures taken of them, nor of the other passengers riding along with them, in a - comprimising position. They are willing to lose their own cameras, because they prize their passengers privacy (NOTE PAX, NOT Customer people do NOT pay to ride, it is strictly by invitation only!) and they consider it rude to ask for phones. Not like it matters when you can hide a camera in a button, pen, whatever... The reason they /want/ to keep their own cameras is for no other reason than if some drunken ass-hat douch-bad, Beiber wanna-be decides to do something criminal to someone else on the bus. No more, no less. they not only have no intention of using the footage for anything else, they don't even plan to review it, unless there is a reported incident, and they'll probably just hand it to the cops.

People will be asked to not take pictures, but their may be some very famouse people riding along with some very attractive (non-professional) other passengers, and - well, people will be people. There is a "Guido" on board, but by then it's too late.

We have tried single source, high intensity (250W NIR and 125W IR LEDs) to the point where it was starting to become visible, and it works, only in the immediate area of the LED cluster. There are indeed mirrors all over the bus, and a white light (RGB, I know) LASER show device, and a fogger, but that won't be enough.

One (several) of the comments suggested strobing and varying the LEDs, We'll try that next. It seems to make sense. We also like the idea of selectively targeting the CCDs, but - well honestly, I have no clue how. I know in theory how, and that it does work in movie theaters, and on the occasional boat, but it's above my skill set. I'm that good, but, in other areas. (I'm good, not God.) I'm checking out a link that was posted.

They understand that they won't get every camera, but they obviously want as many as possible.

And for the losers who say "No, it can't be done, and you're an idiot for asking!" - well, let me quote Capt. Tagon "Never tell me what *you* can't do as if it's something *nobody* can do."

For the rest of you who are actually trying to help, one nerd to another, Thank you.

Comment: Re:You are on the right track just not quite there (Score 1) 478

by Paul server guy (#46292437) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Anti-Camera Device For Use In a Small Bus?

You've tried ultra bright IR but you really need flickering ultra-bright IR strobing at different rates and levels. A solid IR just sets things up for a better photo. Providing the camera didn't have an IR filter and did photograph IR a flickering IR would cause differing light needs within the exposure window which the camera would be unlikely to adapt to.

If you are able to link the timing of the flickering in with your own cameras you'd be able to shut it off momentarily (electronically) and grab the photo.

I agree. This may be what we are looking for. We did use a single high intensity source, and what it took to bloom the CCD was - extreme. I'll play with several high intensity IR LEDs, fluctuating and strobing and see what happens. Thank you.

Comment: Re:Not Possible (Score 1) 478

by Paul server guy (#46292413) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Anti-Camera Device For Use In a Small Bus?

Anti camera tech that blocks the taking of images, but allows the taking of images by certain cameras, but you can't be required to do or wear anything special/different. So, basically, we need a non-existent cloaking technology that we can see through with our own cameras.

Dude, it is clear that you work for complete fucking idiots. Unless you are also a complete fucking idiot, (which I think you might be since you posted this on Slashdot) you need to find another job with a better employer. What will you do when they demand that the limos be driven by Yetis and lead along the road by unicorns?

Actually not. For example, There are several theater protection systems that use active lasers, looking for CCD, but that's not real practical here.
Unless someone knows somethign I don't. Hence the reason I'm asking...

"Life sucks, but it's better than the alternative." -- Peter da Silva

Working...